Allahabad High Court

MITHUNversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as he is not the principal offender and there is no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mithun, accused in Crime No. 233 of 2025 under IPC sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110 and 105. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the principal offender was the co‑accused Reeta Devi, who allegedly caused the fatal head injury. The court examined the post‑mortem report, eyewitness statements and the fact that the applicant had been in custody for more than three months without any evidence that he would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Finding no reasonable apprehension of such risks and noting that the applicant was not the principal offender, the court concluded that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who is not the principal offender, is entitled to bail under the circumstances.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant will tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released.
Whether the length of pre‑trial detention justifies granting bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 110, 115(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
false implication
murder
assault
witness intimidation
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12981 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Singh, Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder 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. 233 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
352, 351(3), 110, 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Itwa, District- Siddharth
Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the
applicant along with co-accused Reeta Devi is alleged to have abused and
assaulted the son of the informant. As per the post-mortem report, the
deceased received two injuries i.e. (i) abraded wound over left side chest and
(ii) contused swelling on top of head to left side of head, on cutting skin
underneath hematoma present, on opening skull bone brain tissue
parenchyma hematoma was present. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of
death is coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries (head injury). Further, as
per the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Shivkaran and Sunita, the
co-accused Reeta Devi is alleged to have caused injury on the head of the
deceased. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-
accused Reeta Devi. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal
offender, who caused the head injury to the deceased. Criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in paragraph-32 of the bail application. The
applicant is in jail since 25.12.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he
will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 12981 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is
coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries (head injury). As per the statements
of the eye-witnesses, namely, Shivkaran and Sunita, the co-accused Reeta
Devi is alleged to have caused injury on the head of the deceased. The
applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the
head injury to the deceased. Further, the applicant has remained confined for
more than three months and after submission of 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 Mithun, 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.

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…