Allahabad High Court
SUBHAN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Subhan Khan applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 130 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 317(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and that the FIR was lodged eight days after the alleged incident, creating a fatal delay for the prosecution. He also contended that the recovery of Rs.1,07,000 and a mobile phone was based solely on an informer's information with no independent witness linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points or show any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The Court found the delay and lack of naming in the FIR to be fatal to the prosecution, noted the applicant’s clean record and two‑month pre‑trial detention, and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The bail order required a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with conditions against tampering, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
- Whether the applicant's non‑inclusion in the FIR precludes continued detention.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 317(3) warrants denial of bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 317(3)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- first information report
- no independent witness
- clean criminal record
- conditions of bail
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14433 of 2026
Subhan Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Mohsin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2026, under Sections 310(2),
317(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar during
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The incident is alleged to have taken place on
16.2.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 24.2.2026.
The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer,
the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Abdul Rehman and has
been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of Rs.1,07,000/-
and a mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is contended that the
recovered Indian currency and mobile phone do not link the applicant with
the alleged offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.2.2026 having no
criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 14433 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information
report is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of an information
furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused
Abdul Rehman. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than two 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Subhan Khan involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
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.)
May 7, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…