Nazim And 3 Others v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard Ms. Abha Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State. There are allegations against the applicant in the FIR that on account of breaking on fire in cracker factory, where explosive substance were kept, seven persons died . . Learned counsel for the applicants submits that wives of the applicant no.1 and 4 also died in the incident. Applicants are real brothers of the co- accused, Nasir , who is owner of the cracker factory. It is a case of accident. There was no intention of causing murder of any person. The applicants are in jail since 6.10.2024 and have no criminal history to their credit. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs.
Operative part
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicants, Nazim, Ahmad Miya@ Sujha, Mohammad Miya @ Bhura and Husnain , involved in Case Crime No.325 of 2024 , under Section- 45/46/61/61(2)/62/105/106/324(4)/324 (5) B.N.S.S. sections 5/9B/(c Explosive Act and section 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act Police Station- Sirauli, District- Bareilly, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicants 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicants 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Atul kr. sri. ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 21; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Explosive Substances Act — ss. 3, 4, 5; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 06 May 2025. The bench was SIDDHARTH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.