Allahabad High Court

KAMLESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The bail application is allowed, and the accused is released on bail subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused Kamlesh Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged fraud and forgery under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 411. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR was lodged two years after the alleged incident, that the arrest was not communicated as required by law, and that the applicant was falsely implicated and not a beneficiary of the alleged money. The State and the first informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and risk of witness tampering. The court noted the Supreme Court’s observations in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 117) regarding unlawful contracts and misuse of FIRs, but found that the applicant posed no flight risk, had explained his criminal antecedent, and that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and further criminal activity.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of two years in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case and warrants bail.
Whether the arrest of the accused was valid in the absence of communication of grounds as mandated by law.
Whether the accused poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.
Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh is applicable to the present bail application.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 411, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
false implication
witness tampering
Section 483
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
IPC offences
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12491 of 2026

Kamlesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Rajesh
Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on
behalf of first informant, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State, Shri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Kamlesh
Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 IPC, Police Station Amariya,
District Pilibhit, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number
and is languishing in jail since 2.2.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that FIR has been lodged with the delay of 02 years without any
plausible explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for
the applicant submits that as per prosecution case, allegation against the
applicant along with co-accused persons have duped the first informant
for securing his job in a government department. Applicant is not
beneficiary of the money in any manner. The ground of arrest has not
been communicated to the applicant, which is mandatory requirement of
BAIL No. 12491 of 2026
2

law and as such, the arrest becomes void ab initio. Much emphasis has
been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant to the Para 13 of decision
of the Apex Court rendered in case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas and
another versus State of Chattisgarh and others, reported in 2024 INSC
117, which is as under:-

"13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was
totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being
paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector.
Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the
same where the payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the respondent
no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building
pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the
threat of criminal prosecution, may be the appellant would have tried to
sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money."

Charge sheet in this case has been filed on 20.4.2026 and cognizance
thereon has already been taken on 30.4.2026. Further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is no more required. Applicant has one case
of criminal antecedent, which has sufficiently been explained and there is
no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with
evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence,
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie,
but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Kamlesh Kumar, 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
BAIL No. 12491 of 2026
3

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.

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

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…