01Facts
The applicant sought bail in connection with Case Crime No. 279 of 2025, involving alleged physical assault on an injured victim, Sayma Bano.
¶ 3-4While medical reports confirmed an "early pregnancy loss," they noted no external injuries on the victim.
¶ 4The State opposed bail, highlighting that the applicant suppressed his criminal history of five cases in the application, violating the disclosure requirements introduced by the 2025 High Court Amendment Rules.
¶ 6The applicant subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing these cases after the prosecution raised the objection.
¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the lack of medical evidence of external injury and absence of knowledge/intention regarding the victim's pregnancy.
¶ 7ii.2. Whether the suppression of criminal history and non-compliance with the disclosure procedures under the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, constitutes a sufficient ground to deny bail.
¶ 6–703Law Applied
Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the necessity of intention or knowledge when causing injury that results in pregnancy loss.
¶ 4Rule 18, sub-Rule (7) of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which mandates the disclosure of all pending bail applications and the applicant’s entire criminal history in every bail filing.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 91Section 115Section 351Section 352
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 91
04Reasoning
The Court balanced the gravity of the "early pregnancy loss" against the medical finding that no external injuries were present on the victim.
¶ 7It reasoned that since the applicant was unaware of the eight-week pregnancy, the requisite intent to cause such specific harm under the statute was a matter for trial rather than a bar to bail.
¶ 4, 7Regarding the procedural lapse, although the Court noted the applicant's "suppression of material fact" and attempt to "misuse the liberty of bail," it determined that the merits of the case—specifically the nature of the evidence and duration of incarceration since October 2025—outweighed the procedural misconduct for the purpose of granting liberty.
¶ 705Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
¶ 8To prevent future non-disclosure, the Court issued a general directive that all Judicial Officers in Uttar Pradesh must record the criminal history of applicants in a tabular form in their orders and mandated the State/Prosecution to provide these details during hearings.
¶ 13Failure by Public Prosecutors or Investigating Officers to provide accurate criminal history will now result in administrative referrals for disciplinary action.
¶ 14Original Court PDF
Nafees Alias Mohammad NafeesvsState of U.P.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
