Allahabad High Court
Hafiz @ Sapera vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63169
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2686 of 2025
Hafiz @ Sapera
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
O.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(Crl. Misc. Application No.01 of 2025)
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This Criminal Appeal, numbered 2686 of 2025, has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Court No. 2, Unnao, whereby the first bail application of the appellant (Hafiz @ Sapera s/o Shakoor) in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 10 of 2025, Under Sections 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Ajgain, District- Unnao, was rejected.
The Applicant/Accused, Hafiz @ Sapera son of Shakur, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025 challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 2, Unnao, which rejected his First Bail Application No. 1818 of 2025. The accused has been in jail since 12.01.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025 registered at Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act. The controversy centers on the murder of Reena (a lady separated from her husband), whose body was found on 10.01.2025. The Post Mortem Report (PM No. 29/26) concluded that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to Smothering, and the lower court rejected bail based on the gravity of the crime, the PM findings, and the accused's own alleged confessional statement to the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant/appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story due to malice or to claim compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act. He further submits that he was falsely implicated as his name was mentioned in the FIR merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that during the examination of the witnesses of fact (PWs), not all of them supported the prosecution version, and none of them had seen the appellant with the deceased at the time of the incident. The defense argues that the entire prosecution story is improbable, there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence with no eye-witnesses. He explicitly contends that the lower court's judgment was founded on "surmises and conjectures," failed to give due weight to the defense, and that the order is neither warranted in law nor on facts. The applicant further submits that he has no criminal history and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, praying that the impugned order be set aside and he be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant, Hafiz @ Sapera, submits that the instant criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025) deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the court of Learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 1818/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025 , under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes the bail application of the accused Hafiz @ Sapera, which challenges the rejection of his bail application (No. 1818 of 2025) by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 2, Unnao, through the order dated 30.07.2025. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offence in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025, lodged under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, which involves the murder of the 35-year-old deceased, Reena, where the cause of death was Asphyxia due to Smothering, as per the Post Mortem Report (PM No. 29/26). Crucially, the lower court's rejection, which is under challenge, specifically considered the accused's confessional statement dated 12.01.2025, where he admitted to hitting the victim's face and nose before smothering her to death; given the extreme gravity and serious nature of the case, and the accused's admitted involvement, the Special Judge found insufficient grounds to grant bail, leading the prosecution to rely on the Post Mortem Report and the confession to support the continued detention of the accused, who has been in jail since 12.01.2025.
Upon considering the case material pertaining to Hafiz @ Sapera son of Shakur of Unnao (Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025), the court notes the that the matter is arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025 at P.S. Ajgain, District Unnao, where the accused has been jailed since 12.01.2025, for the alleged murder of Reena under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act. The appellant's defense asserts the entire prosecution story is "totally false and fabricated," arguing his false implication due to village partybandi (rivalry) and a motive to secure compensation under the S.C./S.T. Act. Crucially, the defense highlights that the case is built on circumstantial evidence with no eye-witnesses, pointing out major contradictions in witness statements (including those under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) and a lack of proper corroboration between the statements and the post-mortem report. The defense contends that the Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Court No. 2, Unnao, erred by rejecting his bail application No. 1818 of 2025 on 30.07.2025 based on surmises and conjectures, thus warranting the setting aside of the order and the enlargement of the Appellant, who claims no prior criminal history, on bail during the trial's pendency.
The applicant/appellant, Hafiz @ Sapera, respectfully prays that the instant Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 2025 may be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 1818 of 2025 is prayed to be set aside. This arises out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, and the appellant is prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the appellant- Hafiz @ Sapera son of Shakur, resident of Village- Asha Kheda, Unnao, be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0010 of 2025 (not 195 of 2025), Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S.S. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, during the pendency of the trial.
(1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during tria.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
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
As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)
October 13, 2025
Haseen U.
