Allahabad High Court

DEVKI NANDANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, absent any corroborative evidence and given the parity with a co‑accused already released on bail, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Devki Nandan in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 111(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the alleged tractor was not recovered from his possession and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court observed that a co‑accused in an identical position, Teetu @ Himanshu, had already been granted bail, and that the applicant had already been detained for nearly two months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Finding no risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the lack of corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offences
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing
Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants granting bail to the applicant

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b), 303(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
false implication
evidence
co‑accused parity
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14125 of 2026

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

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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 554 of 2025, under Sections 303(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b) BNS, Police Station Shikohabad,
District Firozabad, 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 alleged tractor was not recovered
from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the
applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted
on behalf of such syndicate. Identically placed co-accused Teetu @
Himanshu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40804 of 2025, Teetu @
Himanshu v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history
of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-5 of the affidavit. The
applicant is in jail since 09.03.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 the alleged tractor was not recovered
from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused
Teetu @ Himanshu has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for almost two months and after submission
BAIL No. 14125 of 2026
2

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- Devki Nandan, 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.
May 7, 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…