Allahabad High Court

AMITOSHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amitosh in a case registered under Sections 125, 352, 351(2), 105 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed false implication, citing a delayed FIR and a hostile prosecution witness who did not support the prosecution. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The court observed that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the key witness was hostile, and the applicant had been in custody for over eight months with no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case and warrants bail.
Whether the hostile nature of the prosecution witness and lack of evidence of tampering or intimidation justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant's alleged false implication merits release on bail pending trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 125, 34(1), 34(2), 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
hostile witness
false implication
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10144 of 2026

Amitosh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2025, under Sections 125,
352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kundarki, District- Moradabad
during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
12.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged 16.09.2025,
under Sections 125, 352, 351(2), 34(1) and 34(2) B.N.S. The husband of
the informant died on 02.10.2025. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that the
applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. No medical procedure
or treatment was provided by the applicant to the deceased. Further,
during the course of trial, the informant, who is the wife of the deceased,
was examined as P.W.-1, has not supported the prosecution version and
has been declared hostile by the trial court vide order dated 16.06.2026.
The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witness is annexed as
Annexure No.SA-1 to the second supplementary affidavit. The applicant
is in jail since 13.01.2026 having no criminal history and in case, he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 10144 of 2026
2

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. The prosecution witnesses Mamta, P.W.1 (informant) has not
supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the trial
court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight
months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail,
would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the
witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Amitosh, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

September 23, 2026
Abhishek

(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…