Allahabad High Court

GAYA PRASAD VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

In the absence of substantive evidence linking the applicant to the offence and given the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Gaya Prasad Vishwakarma in a case involving offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(2) of the IPC and Section 61(2) of the CrPC. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and only mentioned in a co‑accused’s confessional statement, asserting he is merely a marginal witness. The State opposed bail, claiming the earlier rejection order was lawful. The Court observed that no substantive evidence linked the applicant to the alleged crimes, that co‑accused had already been granted interim protection, and that the applicant had been in custody for over six months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Finding no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR but is mentioned in a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Whether the absence of substantive evidence linking the accused to the offence justifies bail.
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention without a speedy trial warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(4), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
false implication
pre‑trial detention
evidence
witness intimidation
interim protection
IPC
CrPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12763 of 2026

Gaya Prasad Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Sanjay Kumar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Singh Yadav, Rama
Shanker

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the informant.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 492 of 2025, under Sections 319(2),
318(4), 338, 336(4), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Madiyahu, District
Jaunpur, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel for
the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is not named in the
F.I.R and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-
accused. It is next submitted that applicant is only marginal witness of the
said sale deed. Charge sheet has already been submitted. Other co-
accused of the applicant have already granted interim protection in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 28054 of 2025, 29174 of 2025 and
10308 of 2026. Learned counsel submits that applicant has not committed
the alleged crime. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in parar '22' of the bail application. Applicant is in jail since
26.2.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if
BAIL No. 12763 of 2026
2

the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is
ready to co-operate in the trial.

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. The applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was
disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused. At this stage
there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-
accused of the applicant has already granted interim protection by this
Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six
months and 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. Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Gaya Prasad Vishwakarma, involved in the aforesaid
case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two
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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 8, 2026
Brijesh

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…