Muttlib Saifi vs State Of U.P.
2026 Latest Caselaw 819 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Muttlib Saifi vs State Of U.P. on 15 April, 2026

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:82743
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24568 of 2025   
 
   Muttlib Saifi    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Aditi Srivastava, Ajay Singh Yadav, Kandarp Srivastava, Manish Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Aditya Pratap Mishra, G.A., Krishna Nand   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
(Sr. No.151 out of 311)   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.         

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 64(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 67(A) I.T. Act, Police Station- Khoda, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The applicant is stated to have sent certain indecent photographs and videos of the victim, threatened her, and caused the termination of her marriage, which was to be solemnized elsewhere. The said fact stands falsified by the report filed in the supplementary affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the Investigating Officer, during the investigation, found that the two mobile numbers from which the said messages and photographs were sent belonged to the victim and her real sister themselves. As such, the applicant himself had given an application prior to the instant FIR; however, the FIR has been instituted subsequently regarding the same offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 02.05.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that the two mobile phones from which the said messages and photographs were sent belonged to the victim and her real sister themselves, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Muttlib Saifi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

April 15, 2026

(Ravi Kant)