Allahabad High Court

DILSHADversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and given parity with co‑accused granted bail, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Dilshad, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 422 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, the B.N.S., and the Information Technology Act. He argued that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated by statements of co‑accused arrested at the scene, which the court found unreliable and lacking corroboration. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's claim of no independent evidence linking him to the alleged recovery of a mobile phone and laptop. The court noted that similarly situated co‑accused Kallan and Danish had already been granted bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. Considering the absence of any material suggesting a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the applicant is not named in the FIR and is only implicated by co‑accused statements.
Whether the lack of independent or corroborative evidence justifies granting bail.
Whether parity with co‑accused already released on bail mandates bail for the applicant.
Whether there is any reasonable apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying the trial.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 3(5)
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66C, 66D

Subjects

bail
first information report
co‑accused statements
lack of corroboration
Indian Penal Code
Information Technology Act
parity
evidence tampering
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12248 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Fakhruzzaman
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for
the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.422 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 66C, 66D I.T. Act, Police Station -
Civil Lines, District - Rampur, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused, who were arrested
at the spot. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are
unreliable. False recovery of a mobile phone and a laptop has been shown
from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone and laptop do not connect the
applicant with any offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit
transaction. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the
applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, identically placed co-accused Kallan and
Danish, who were arrested at the spot, have been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.44654 of 2025. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
24.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will
not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 12248 of 2026
2

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-
accused, who were arrested at the spot. There is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Kallan and
Danish, who were arrested at the spot, have been granted bail by this Court.
Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained
confined for more than three months and after submission of the 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 Dilshad, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail 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
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.

April 20, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…