Allahabad High Court

BANTI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Banti Kumar in Criminal Case No. 545 of 2025, where he was alleged to have participated in an assault that caused the death of the informant's son. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a one‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any specific allegation that he caused the fatal head injury, and a lack of corroborative evidence, while also noting his clean criminal record and four‑month pre‑trial detention. The State opposed bail but could not effectively counter these submissions. After reviewing the post‑mortem report and the evidence, the Court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, and therefore the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearing before the trial court, not tampering with evidence, and not pressurising witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offence alleged.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.

Subjects

bail
false implication
lack of evidence
no criminal antecedents
postmortem report
assault causing death
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13427 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babali, Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwawri,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 545 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 04.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
05.12.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with
three accused is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. The son
of the informant succumbed to his injuries on 05.12.2025. As per the
postmortem report, a single injury was found on the head region. In the
opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma and shock due to ante
mortem head injury. It is contended that a vague and general role has been
assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the
principal offender who caused the head injury. It is next contended that as
per the statement of the independent witnesses namely Mangal Singh and
Kedari, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and the incident had
occurred due to sudden quarrel without any premeditation. At this stage
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant is in jail since 22.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 13427 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, a
single injury was found on the head region. A vague and general role has
been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the
principal offender who caused the head injury. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined
for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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,
therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Banti Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,

(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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 23, 2026
SKT/-

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…