Allahabad High Court

RUPESH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted bail to Rupesh Singh subject to heavy sureties and strict conditions.

Summary

Rupesh Singh applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 36 of 2026) involving offences under sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of the B.N.S. and section 66 of the Income Tax Act. He claimed false implication and pointed to the fact that co‑accused Saloni Yadav and Suraj Kumar Tiwari, who faced identical charges, had already been granted bail. The State opposed, arguing that Singh is a repeat offender with another pending case of a similar nature. The Court noted the similarity of Singh’s role to the co‑accused, considered his solitary prior case (Crime No. 57 of 2025) where he is on bail, and decided to grant bail while imposing heavy sureties. Conditions were imposed to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and any further criminal activity, with a warning that bail could be cancelled on breach.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite being a repeat offender and having a pending case of similar nature
Whether the grant of bail to co‑accused on identical charges influences the applicant’s entitlement to bail
Whether the nature of the offences under the B.N.S. and Income Tax Act warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 340(2)
Income Tax Act — s. 66

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
repeat offender
surety
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
Income Tax Act
B.N.S.

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10409 of 2026

Rupesh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manshi Upadhyay, Rajesh Kumar Patel,
Shashi Shekhar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. This bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking in Case
Crime No. 36 of 2026, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S.
and 66 of I.T. Act, police station Chiluatal, district Gorakhpur during he
pendency of the trial.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. Similarly situated co-accused
Saloni Yadav and Suraj Kumar Tiwari have been granted bail by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.
8327 of 2026 and 8960 of 2026. The applicant has a solitary previous
criminal case to his credit, being Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, in which he is
on bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
the applicant is a repeat offender, having been involved in another case of a
like nature. Although he is on bail in the said case, he may not be considered
for grant of bail in the present case. Learned A.G.A. has not denied the fact
that similarly situated co-accused Saloni Yadav and Suraj Kumar Tiwari
have been granted bail by this Court.

5. The applicant is said to have been arrested at the spot along with co-
accused Saloni Yadav and Suraj Kumar Tiwari. Recovery of laptops, mobile
phones, and certain other materials has been made from the joint possession
of the arrested co-accused, who are said to be five in number. The role
BAIL No. 10409 of 2026
2

assigned to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Suraj Kumar
Tiwari and Saloni Yadav, who have been granted bail by this Court.

6. Taking into account the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the
case, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.

7. Also considering the criminal history of the applicant, this Court, while
granting bail to the applicant, deems it appropriate to impose heavy sureties.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Rupesh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; shall not
pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; shall appear before the
trial court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is
exempted.

2. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the pendency of the
trial; and shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

11. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are solely for the
purposes of deciding this bail application and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.

May 5, 2026
Sumaira
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SUMAIRA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…