Allahabad High Court
ASHIK RAJPOOTversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence and criminal history alone does not preclude bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ashik Rajpoot, who was charged under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing on a police party. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, noting that no police were injured, he himself sustained a leg injury, and the alleged recovery of a pistol and ammunition was based solely on his confession without any independent witness. The State opposed bail, citing the applicant's criminal antecedents, but offered no evidence that he might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The Court observed that there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and that criminal history alone cannot justify denial of bail absent exceptional circumstances. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail despite the pending trial and his past record. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of independent or corroborative evidence warrants granting bail to the accused.
- Whether the accused's criminal antecedents alone justify denial of bail.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence under the Arms Act and IPC Section 109 precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 27, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- lack of corroborative evidence
- Arms Act
- IPC Section 109
- trial pendency
- false recovery
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12203 of 2026
Ashik Rajpoot
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hare Krishna Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 109 of 2025, under Section 109 B.N.S.,
and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Babina, District- Jhansi during
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on the police party. No
police personnel received any injury. In fact the applicant received injury on
his right leg. False recovery of a country made pistol, two live cartridges and
Rs. 2000/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confession of the applicant while
in police custody. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence against
the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in
para 18 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 8.5.2025. In case
he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits
that the applicant has criminal antecedents.
5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that there
is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with offence.
BAIL No. 12203 of 2026
2
6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the
case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely
influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in
past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of
regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been
booked."
8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.
9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eleven months,
there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
10. Let the applicant- Ashik Rajpoot, involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in
view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
BAIL No. 12203 of 2026
3
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and
(iv) shall appear on 1st Sunday of every month at the Police Station
concerned.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…