Farman v. Asheesh Kumar Tiwari

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shyam Narayan Rai, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Farman seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.612 of 2025, under Sections 87 and 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar.

Tersely, as per allegations contained in the F.I.R., accused applicant along with other accused persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He further submitted that in the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. the victim has not supported the prosecution version regarding the fact that accused applicant kidnapped her. As per birth certificate, date of birth of the victim is 10.08.2004 whereas incident occurred on 07.12.2025 meaning thereby the victim is about 21 years at the time of incident, she is major and she went with the applicant out of her own sweet will. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para- 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the facts that though the accused applicant is named but the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. has not supported the prosecution version clearly and specifically, she in the statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. stated that she went along with the applicant out of her own sweet will, as per information of learned A.G.A., charge-sheet has been submitted in this case on 21.12.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned. (iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. March 19, 2026 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.)