HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8043 of 2026 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Mohd. Dilshad, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor vide order dated 12.1.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 9.12.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is stated to have been involved in the murder of one unknown person in Riyad, Saudi Arabia. He is stated to have ran away from Saudi Arabia and reached India. A case under Section 302 IPC is stated to have been registered against the applicant. During investigation, it came to light that the applicant was an Indian Citizen, who had been issued Passport No. U245289 dated 20.10.1995, which was valid up to 19.10.2005. During investigation, it was also revealed that applicant managed to issue one more Passport bearing No. G9619221 issued from Regional Passport Office, Bareilly U.P. on 28.8.2008., which was valid up to 27.8.2018. It is alleged Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Wadood, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Dilshad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that on the basis of the subsequent passport, the applicant managed to travel abroad despite a look out issued against him. The applicant is stated to have got issued another passport bearing No. R8399542 and get a new passport issued. The applicant is stated to have manipulated his date of birth 15.6.1973 to read as 20.2.1974 and also mentioned the name of his father as Ziaul Haq in place of Zyaul Haq. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is highly delayed inasmuch as occurrence of the offence is stated to be of 28.8.2008 whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 26.11.2025 without there being any plausible explanation for such a gross delay of 17 years. Arguments have also been advanced that the arrest of the applicant is illegal inasmuch as the remand request before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Disrict Bijnor was sought on printed format and without application of mind. It is also argued that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the applicant and reliance has been placed on the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah versus State of Maharasthra and another, reported in 2026 (1) SCC 500 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that grounds of arrest is mandatorily required to be furnished in writing and breach of any of the requirement would render the arrest of the arrestee illegal entitling him to be released forthwith. The relevant portion of the decision rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is as under:- "66. In conclusion, it is held that: 66.1 The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); 66.2 The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; 66.3 In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. BAIL No. 8043 of 2026 2 66.4 In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free. 67. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be as has been laid down above in this order. 68. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth." It has been argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant for prosecuting him in the alleged crime. The applicant is not guilty of preparing any forged documents as his father's name is Zyaul Haq and if there is any change in the pronunciation of the said name, would entail any offence. It is accordingly submitted that no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can be said to be made out against the applicant. It is argued that even otherwise, the offence alleged are triable by Magistrate. Criminal history of one case has duly been explained in Paragraph 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.3.2026, Special Judge (P.C.Act) CBI-22, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. BAIL No. 8043 of 2026 3 Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Mohd. Dilshad, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. 5. The applicant will surrender his passport before Trial Court. 6. The applicant will not leave the India without prior permission of the Trial Court. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. March 31, 2026 Ravi Prakash BAIL No. 8043 of 2026 4 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad