Allahabad HC Grants Bail, Asks Sessions Court to Explain Why Co-Accused Got Different Treatment

Granting bail to a knife-injury accused, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad to explain within seven days why a similarly placed co-accused was treated differently in bail proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court on 17 June 2026 granted bail to Mohammad Rafiq @ Rafiqul Islam, accused in a knife-injury case registered at Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, and simultaneously directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad to furnish a detailed explanation for having denied bail to the applicant while granting it to a co-accused assigned a substantially similar role. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, sitting singly at Court No. 45, found that the differential treatment between the applicant and co-accused Anshu raised a question of judicial consistency that warranted an institutional response.

The Knife-Injury Case and the Applicant’s Role

The case arises from Crime No. 197 of 2026, registered under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Police Station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. The prosecution alleged that the applicant came armed with a knife and caused an incised wound of 03 cm x 02 cm x muscle deep on the back of the left shoulder of injured Noshad.

Injured Noshad sustained ten injuries in total. According to the injury report, the injuries were simple in nature except injury nos. 2 and 6. Counsel for the applicant, Azaz Ahmad, submitted that as per the supplementary report, injury no. 6 was also subsequently found to be simple. There was, therefore, no grievous or life-threatening injury on Noshad attributable to the applicant.

Co-accused Anshu was assigned the role of causing a knife injury to a separate injured person, Deepak — an incised wound of 02 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the left side outer aspect of the back of the chest. The applicant had been in custody since 27 April 2026. He had no criminal antecedents.

The Inconsistency That Triggered the High Court’s Concern

The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad had rejected the applicant’s first bail application on 14 May 2026. The sessions court, in its order, noted that the FIR alleged the applicant had stabbed the complainant with intent to kill, that the medical officer’s supplementary report recorded two injuries on Noshad, and that the gravity of the offence and the overall facts did not justify bail. The bail application was dismissed.

Subsequently, on 9 June 2026, the same sessions court granted bail to co-accused Anshu. The order granting Anshu’s bail noted that no supplementary report was available on record, that Deepak had sustained a single knife injury on the back of the chest, and that other co-accused in the same case had already been released on bail by that court on earlier dates — co-accused Soni on 6 May 2026, co-accused Arun Kumar on 14 May 2026, and co-accused Kuldeep on 22 May 2026.

When the applicant approached the High Court, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh examined both orders. The court observed that bail had been refused to Mohammad Rafiq on 14 May 2026 but granted to Anshu on 9 June 2026, despite the two accused being alleged to have performed substantially similar roles — each causing a single knife blow to a separate injured person.

The court recorded that “judicial consistency and uniform application of legal principles are matters of institutional importance” and found it appropriate to seek an explanation from the concerned court.

How the High Court Reasoned on Bail

On the merits of the bail application, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh weighed several factors: the nature of the accusations, the evidence on record, the period of incarceration since 27 April 2026, the absence of any criminal antecedents, and the character of the injury. The single blow to the back of the shoulder, resulting in a simple wound, was a material consideration. The parity with co-accused Anshu — who had been granted bail by the sessions court itself — was the decisive factor.

The court expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, confining its reasoning to the bail stage. It found that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail and allowed the application.

On the question of the inconsistent orders, the court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad to furnish a detailed explanation through the Registrar General of the High Court within seven days of receiving the communication. The explanation was required to indicate the distinguishing facts, circumstances, or legal considerations that weighed with the court in denying bail to the applicant while granting it to the similarly placed co-accused Anshu. The court further directed that the explanation specifically address the material factors that, in the sessions court’s opinion, justified the differential treatment.

The High Court clarified that the direction was issued for administrative purposes and did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of either of the sessions court’s orders.

Conditions Attached to Bail

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Sureties were to be verified before the release order was issued. The bail is subject to four conditions.

The applicant must file an undertaking that he will not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; failure to comply may be treated as abuse of bail liberty. He must appear before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel; absence without sufficient cause may attract proceedings under Section 269 BNSS. If the applicant misuses bail liberty, a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS may be issued, and failure to appear on the date fixed in such proclamation may lead to proceedings under Section 209 BNS. He must remain present in person on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS; deliberate or unjustified absence may be treated as abuse of bail liberty.

Breach of any condition will be a ground for cancellation of bail. The court clarified that observations made in granting bail will not affect the trial judge in forming an independent opinion based on witness testimony.

Order

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad through the District Judge, Ghaziabad by the fastest mode within three days. The matter has been listed before the High Court on 13 July 2026, along with the explanation from the sessions court.