Mahmood @ Nizamuddin v. State of U.P

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2025, U/S 85, 64(2)(M), 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim, is stated to have committed rape with her several times.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is stated that there is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR.

It is stated that the victim is obviously major, as she is a married lady. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The instant case is just the misuse of the dowry laws.

Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599, wherein it has been categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.3.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, there being no time of offence mentioned in the FIR, there being no medical corroboration of the incident and considering the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra), 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 applicant- Mahmood @ Nizamuddin involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 13.5.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad