# Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 511
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 296 of 2026
- **Bench:** Harvir Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nafees-alias-mohammad-nafees-v-state-of-u-p-54920
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Nafees alias Mohammad Nafees Vs. State of U.P.
511
section 18(1) of the Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 cannot be invoked for extension of the
period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 18(2) of the Act.

16.As the Collector is not a civil court and as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 have not been made applicable to proceedings before the Collector under the Act, and as
there is no provision in the Act enabling the Land Acquisition Collector to extend the time for
making an application for reference, the Collector cannot entertain any application for extension,
nor extend the time for seeking reference, even if there are genuine and bonafide grounds for
condoning delay. This view was reiterated in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam
and others [2009 (16) SCC 1]. Therefore, the observation of the High Court that an application for
condonation of delay could have been made by the person interested, is incorrect."

24. The Apex Court in the said judgement also laid down that if the person interested was
not present when the award is made and did not receive notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act, he
has to make an application within six months of the date on which he actually and constructively
came to know about the conditions of the award.

E. CONCLUSION

16. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner cannot claim lack of knowledge of the
acquisition proceedings. No explanation has been furnished as to why the statutory remedy
available under the Act, 1894 was not availed within the prescribed period. In view of the law
settled by the catena of judgments as placed before us by the respondent counsels, we have no
hesitation in holding that the Collector does not have any such power of enlargement of time.
Similar issue has also been considered by the Full Bench in Vijai Pal (supra). Accordingly, we find
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Collector.

17. The judgment of Mohan Singh (supra) relied by the petitioner is distinguishable as the
same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter.

18. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, does not warrant any interference and the same is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 511
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 296 of 2026

Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Matter pertains to whether considering the nature of allegations, medical evidence indicating early pregnancy
loss, absence of external injury, alleged lack of intention to cause such injury, pendency of criminal cases
against the applicant, and suppression of criminal history in the bail application, the accused-applicant was
entitled to be released on bail during pendency of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 91 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - s. 91 - Bail - Concealment of criminal history - Duty to disclose pending cases -
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025 - Scope - Directions issued - The case arose
from an incident wherein allegations were levelled against the accused-applicant for committing
physical assault upon the injured, resulting in internal injury and early pregnancy loss - An FIR
was registered under various ss. of BNS, 2023 - The applicant sought bail contending false
implication, absence of external injury in the medical examination, lack of knowledge regarding
pregnancy, and absence of intention to cause such injury - While the State opposed the bail
application on the ground that internal injury was caused to injured resulting in pregnancy loss
and further alleged that the applicant had suppressed his criminal history of five pending cases
while filing the instant bail application.

Held: It is evident that, by suppressing the pendency of 5 criminal cases and concealment thereof, the
applicant has tried to take the benefit of liberty of bail - However, without taking into consideration the
criminal history of applicant and the suppression of material fact of pendency of five criminal cases against the
applicant, other ground is available that, in both the medical reports, the first report speaks of no external
injury, however, as far as second report is concerned, it shows early pregnancy loss by injured, but the said
fact of pregnancy was not in the knowledge of accused-applicant, therefore, the applicant-accused has no
intention to cause such bodily injury to injured, moreover, the same is matter of trial - Accused-applicant is
languishing in jail, since 11.10.2025 - Thus, keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused, severity of punishment, submissions of learned counsel for parties and without expressing any
opinion on merits of case, the applicant has made out a case for bail - Accordingly, bail application allowed -
Issued directions to Judicial Officers of State of Uttar Pradesh. [Para 7, 12, 13]

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Allahabad High Court
(Amendment) Rules, 2025

List of Keywords
Bail Application; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Falsely implicated;
Physical assault on injured; Medical report; External injury; 82 days pregnancy; Gestational sac; Embryo;
Cardiac activity; Knowledge about early pregnancy loss; Intention; Bodily injury; Disclose criminal history of
cases in tabular form; Follow the procedure as prescribed in Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025;
Direction to Judicial Officers (Sessions Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge) of State of Uttar
Pradesh; Application allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 296 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2025, passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Basti in Case Crime No. 279
of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Applicant(s):
Rishabh Srivastava
4 All. Nafees alias Mohammad Nafees Vs. State of U.P.
513
Advs. for the Opposite Party(s):
Deepak Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Nikhilesh Kumar Chaudhary

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit dated 24.3.2026 filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material available on record.

3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/ Nafees Alias
Mohammad Nafees, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 279 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
351(3), 352 and 91 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Parasrampur, District Basti,
during pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that, the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has not committed any
offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
that, allegations of physical assault on injured- Sayma Bano, have been leveled against the accused-
applicant, however, as per the medical report dated 13.9.2025 of the injured, no external injury was
found upon the person of the injured. The injured was further examined by the same hospital, in
which, the medical opinion has been referred as under:-

"Single intrauterine gestational sac seen.

Gestational sac diameter: 6.6 mm.

Evidence of an embryo in gestational sac.

CRL: 18 mm, corresponds to 08 weeks 02 days of gestation.

No cardiac activity.

Impression"- Early Pregnancy loss."

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, as far as eight weeks and two days
pregnancy is concerned, the same was not in the knowledge of the applicant, even if he has caused
some injuries to the injured and in the absence of intention to cause such injury to the injured, the
Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not made out against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail
in this matter since 11.10.2025 and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicant, after release
on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, therefore, the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant/ complainant submits
that, even if, it was not the intention of the accused persons, but internal injury has been caused to
the injured by the applicant and as a result of the same, there is early pregnancy loss, which can
only be attributed to the act of the accused-applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for bail of the
applicant on the ground that, the internal injuries have been caused to the injured by the applicant
and having regard to the manner, in which the crime has been committed, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail. Learned AGA for the State further submits that, at the time of filing
of the instant bail application, the accused-applicant has suppressed the material fact of having
criminal history of 5 cases against him and in para 30 of the instant bail application, he has stated
as under:-

"30. That the applicant is law abiding citizen and except the present case, he has no
criminal history."

However, at a later stage, the criminal history of the applicant has been placed on record, by
way of some supplementary affidavit, after being pointed out by the State/ prosecution that, five
criminal cases are pending against the accused- applicant. Learned AGA for the State further
submits that, the applicant has not shown any bona fide by not disclosing the fact of five criminal
cases pending against him and then did not follow the procedure, as prescribed in para 3 of the
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, published vide publication in Extraordinary
Gazette of State of Uttar Pradesh, vide Notification dated 12.11.2025, and the procedure prescribed
therein para 3 is as under:-

"3. Insertion of sub-Rule (7) in Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII.- In Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII
of the Rules, the following sub-Rule (7) shall be inserted after sub-Rule (6) :

(7) Every application for bail filed before this Court shall also disclose-

(a) Particulars of any bail application filed by the applicant which is pending before this
Court, any subordinate Court, or the Supreme Court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to
that effect, together with the result of any such application previously decided along with copy of
the order (s);

(b) Whether the applicant is or was involved in any other criminal case, and if so, the
particulars and decisions thereof."

Learned AGA for the State further submits that, since the internal injuries have been caused to
the injured by the applicant and the applicant also, did not follow the procedure prescribed in the
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, on the subject of Bail, he is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the record, it is
evident that, by suppressing the pendency of 5 criminal cases and concealment thereof, the
applicant has tried to take the benefit of liberty of bail. However, without taking into consideration
the criminal history of the applicant and the suppression of material fact of pendency of five
criminal cases against the applicant, other ground is available that, in both the medical reports, the
first report speaks of no external injury, however, as far as second report is concerned, it shows
early pregnancy loss by the injured, but the said fact of pregnancy was not in the knowledge of
accused-applicant, therefore, the applicant-accused has no intention to cause such bodily injury to
the injured, as stated, moreover, the same is matter of trial; the accused-applicant is languishing in
4 All. Nafees alias Mohammad Nafees Vs. State of U.P.
515
jail in this matter, since 11.10.2025. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered
view, that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the accused-applicant/ Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees, involved in aforesaid case, be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i)
The
applicant
shall
not
tamper
with
the
prosecution
evidence
by
intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court
concerned before the bonds are accepted.

11. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this
bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

12. Apart from above and having regard to the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules,
2025, as stated above in para 6 of this order, it is directed that, all accused-applicants, while filing
the bail application before this High Court, they shall follow the procedure as prescribed in the
Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025 and shall disclose the pendency of any criminal
case(s) against them.

13. Hence, in order to strengthen and streamline the process of criminal history to be
disclosed/ explained at the earliest, it is directed that, all the Judicial Officers (Sessions Judge/
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge) of the State of Uttar Pradesh, while deciding/ disposing
of the bail application, shall also mention the criminal history of the accused/ applicant in a tabular
form in their order and it shall be duty of the State/ prosecution to furnish the details of the
criminal cases/ criminal history, pending against the concerned accused-applicant(s) and bring the
same on record, at the time of hearing of the bail applications.

14. In the event of default by the concerned Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer, the
matter may be referred to the concerned administrative authorities of the State for not placing the
correct/ appropriate facts on record.

15. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to circulate the copy of this order amongst all the
Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for compliance.
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 516
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10323 of 2026

Sunny ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether while preparing an inquest report u/s 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, it is necessary for the investigating officer to mention the name of accused allegedly
responsible for causing the death of deceased, and whether non-mentioning of accused's name in the inquest
report would create a doubt sufficient to entitle the accused-applicant to be enlarged on bail during pendency
of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 105, 194 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
103(1) and 61(2) - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 3/25/27 - Murder - Bail - Grant of - Inquest Report -
Non-mentioning of accused's name - Effect - Object and scope - The prosecution case was that
the accused-applicant allegedly fired upon the deceased at the gate of his housing society,
resulting in his death - The applicant was implicated under various provisions of BNS and Arms
Act - The applicant sought bail contending false implication, inconsistencies in the statements of
alleged eyewitnesses, non-mentioning of his name in inquest report, absence of initial
information regarding the assailant, and lack of incriminating material - The prosecution
opposed the bail application by submitting that several witnesses had seen the applicant at the
place of occurrence, his involvement was corroborated through electronic evidence and recovery
of weapon, and mere omission of accused's name in inquest report was not material.
Held: While preparing the inquest report there is no requirement of mentioning the name of accused who
caused the death of person, whose body is under examination - It is not in dispute that the presence of
applicant was found at the time of incident at 3:30 P.M. while he was making UPI payment at the shop
adjacent to the place of incident, and the incident in question at 5:30 P.M. was seen by several other
witnesses who have made specific allegation of firing against the applicant, and there is a recovery of weapon
from the applicant allegedly used in incident, which was duly substantiated by conducting a videography as
per s. 105 BNSS, and considering the gravity of offence and role of applicant, the Court refused to release the
applicant on bail - Accordingly, bail application rejected. [Paras 10 to 12] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 518 - referred
to

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959