Mohammad Usama vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32739
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person is charged with serious offences including murder, and the case against him rests primarily on the confessional statement of another accused with no independent eye-witness evidence, the court may enlarge him on bail during trial on the basis that the prosecution case is not so strong as to require continued custody.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.283/2025, Under Sections 103(1), 238A, 3(5) BNS (old sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC), Police Station - Hargaon, District - Sitapur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
3.The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 29.07.2025 has been lodged under Section 103(1), 238 BNS (old sections 302 and 201 IPC) against one named accused person Mobeen Khan and unknown persons alleging therein that the brother of the informant had gone to receive money and return the car to Mobeen Khan, to whom he had given the loan. On 26.07.2025 the police has informed that the body of Salman (brother of the informant) was found, who was killed by gun shot. The sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant had also told him that there was fight between Salman and Mobeen Khan, the named accused person, who had killed the brother of the informant alongwith his friends.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The brother of the informant had not come his home since 21.07.2025, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 29.07.2025 when the police had informed about the dead body of the brother of the informant on 26.07.2025, that too with delay of three days.
5. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has come into light for the first time in the confessional statement of the named accused Mobeen Khan, except that there is no evidence found against the applicant during the investigation by the police.
6. It is further submitted that the named accused in his confessional statement has accepted that he had shot the deceased.
7. It is further submitted that neither any eye witness of the incident nor any recovery has been made on the pointing out of the applicant.
8. It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail since 31.07.2025.
9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer but unable to dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that the name of applicant has come into light in the confessional statement of named accused Mobeen Khan and there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
11. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant Mohammad Usama be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
12. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
13. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
S. Kumar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free