Noor Hasan v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed on the
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 125, 275, 318(4)
- Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938…
Judgment
Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 125, 275 BNS and Section 18(C), 27(b)2 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, Police Station- Gangoh, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Sonu and Bhura have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 27.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21263 of 2025 and 20030 of 2025 respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2025 having criminal history of one case which stands explained in paragraph No.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 13.07.2025. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, 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 on the ground of parity.
In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
Let the applicant- Noor Hasan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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 :- 29.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed on the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 125, 275, 318(4); Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 29 Jul 2025. The bench was KRISHAN PAHAL.
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.