Allahabad High Court

DEERAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY @ DEENUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was granted because the court found no sufficient ground to deny it despite the seriousness of the charges, imposing strict conditions to safeguard the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Deeraj Kumar Upadhyay, accused in a case under Sections 420, 386, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged seven months after the alleged incident, that his name only appeared in a later confessional statement of a co‑accused, and that the complaint was essentially a civil dispute coloured criminally. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual contentions. The Court noted the seriousness of the offences, the possibility of evidence tampering and witness intimidation, yet found no compelling reason to deny bail, especially since a co‑accused had been released on similar grounds. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions prohibiting tampering, criminal activity, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 386, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the manner in which the applicant’s name was implicated affect the bail decision.
Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses warrants denial of bail.
Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused on similar facts is determinative for the applicant’s bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 386, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
Section 420
Section 386
Section 467
Section 468
Section 471
Section 120-B
false implication
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12246 of 2026

Deeraj Kumar Upadhyay @ Deenu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh,
learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 363 of 2024, under
Sections 420, 386, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the I.P.C., Police Station
Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant
is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime
number. He submits that the FIR has been registered after seven
month of the alleged incident of which no satisfactory explanation has
been submitted. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced
during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-
accused. He submits that the informant Narendra Dev has not made
any statement against the applicant in his first and second statements
recorded by the Investigating Officer but subsequently he has made
allegations against the applicant in his third statement. He submits
that the version of the FIR reflects civil dispute but the informant has
given it a criminal colour only to harass or making pressure upon the
applicant due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is
merely the proposed purchaser to the agreement to sale dated
31.05.2024. He submits that there is no independent witness of the
BAIL No. 12246 of 2026
2

alleged incident. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 22.05.2025. He submits that the applicant has criminal
antecedents of 24 cases to his credit which has been explained in the
affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He submits that there
is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with
evidence in case of release on bail. It is further submitted that on the
similar footing the co-accused Deepak Jadaun has been granted bail
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7451 of 2026, therefore,
applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail has
been prayed for.

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not
dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of
accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on
merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Deeraj Kumar Upadhyay @ Deenu,
involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail,
on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by
the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through
counsel by the court concerned.
BAIL No. 12246 of 2026
3

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

April 20, 2026
pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…