The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused, Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees, in a case involving an alleged physical assault that resulted in the early pregnancy loss of the victim. While allowing the bail application, the Court issued significant directions to the State judiciary and prosecution regarding the disclosure and recording of an accused’s criminal history during bail proceedings.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harvir Singh, observed that the fact of the victim’s pregnancy was not in the knowledge of the accused-applicant, and therefore, there was no intention to cause such bodily injury.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees, was seeking bail in Case Crime No. 279 of 2025, registered at Police Station Parasrampur, District Basti. The charges against him included Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, and 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The applicant had been in jail since October 11, 2025.
The prosecution’s case centered on allegations of physical assault on the injured party, Sayma Bano. While the initial medical report dated September 13, 2025, showed no external injuries, a subsequent examination revealed an “Early Pregnancy loss” at approximately eight weeks and two days of gestation, with no cardiac activity detected in the embryo.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant argued that Nafees had been falsely implicated. He highlighted that no external injuries were found on the victim. Regarding the pregnancy loss, the counsel submitted that the applicant had no knowledge of the pregnancy. He argued that “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.”
The informant’s counsel countered that internal injuries caused by the applicant led to the pregnancy loss, which should be attributed directly to the applicant’s actions.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail on the grounds of the severity of the crime and the applicant’s conduct. The State pointed out that the applicant had suppressed his criminal history. While the bail application stated the applicant had no prior history, it was later revealed via a supplementary affidavit—after being pointed out by the prosecution—that five criminal cases were pending against him. The State argued that the applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which mandates the disclosure of all pending and past criminal cases.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court noted that the applicant had indeed suppressed the pendency of five criminal cases, stating, “by suppressing the pendency of 5 criminal cases and concealment thereof, the applicant has tried to take the benefit of liberty of bail.”
However, on the merits of the specific case, the Court observed that while the medical report showed pregnancy loss, “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.”
The Court further noted that the first medical report showed no external injuries and that the applicant had been in custody since October 2025. The Court concluded that without expressing an opinion on the merits, which is a matter of trial, the applicant made out a case for bail.
Mandatory Directions for Disclosure of Criminal History
Taking serious note of the suppression of criminal history, the High Court issued a set of directives to streamline bail proceedings in Uttar Pradesh:
- Compliance with 2025 Rules: All bail applicants must follow the Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025, and disclose the pendency of any criminal cases.
- Tabular Form in Orders: The Court directed that all 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.”
- Duty of the State: It shall be the duty of the State/prosecution to furnish complete details of the criminal history and bring them on record at the time of hearing.
- Accountability: In the event of default by the concerned Public Prosecutor or Investigating Officer, the matter may be referred to the concerned administrative authorities of the State for not placing the correct/appropriate facts on record.
Decision
The Court allowed the bail application subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties. The release is conditional upon the applicant not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, and not indulging in further criminal activity.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to circulate the order to all Judicial Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh for compliance.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nafees Alias Mohammad Nafees v. State of U.P.
- Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 296 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Harvir Singh
- Date: April 3, 2026
