Allahabad High Court

DILKHUSH CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the FIR delay, lack of substantive incriminating evidence, and absence of any risk of tampering justify his release.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dilkhush Chaudhary in a case registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the original FIR, that the FIR was lodged a year after the alleged incident, and that medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s timeline, indicating false implication. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found the delay in filing the FIR fatal to the prosecution, noted the applicant’s later appearance only as a peripheral figure, and observed no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Given the applicant’s clean record and five‑month pre‑trial detention, the Court granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for denying bail
Whether the applicant’s absence from the FIR and later inclusion in statements warrants bail
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 118, 3, 333, 351, 352

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
false implication
Indian Penal Code
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14462 of 2026

Dilkhush Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anmol, Umang Chandra
Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prem Narayan Tiwari

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 Sri P.N. Tiwari, counsel for the
informant. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2025,
under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 333 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Khoda, District- Ghazibad during pendency of the
trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 24.8.2025 at 7.30 a.m., whereas the first information
report came to be lodged on 26.8.2026, under Sections 351(2),
352, 333, 118(1) B.N.S. The inordinate delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the
course of investigation, sections 109(1) and 3(5) B.N.S. were also
added. Placing reliance upon the medical report of the injured, it
is contended that the medical examination of the injured was
conducted on 24.8.2025 at 7.05 a.m., i.e. prior to the alleged time
BAIL No. 14462 of 2026
2

of occurrence. The discrepancy between the prosecution version
and the medical evidence creates serious doubt regarding the
genuineness of the prosecution story. It is next contended that the
name of the applicant was surfaced subsequently in the
statements of the informant and injured. In the said statements,
the only role assigned to the applicant is that of catching hold.
The said statement is an after thought. The applicant is in jail
since 23.11.2025 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 and counsel for the informant
have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

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. The name of the applicant was surfaced subsequently in the
statements of the informant and injured. In the said statements,
the only role assigned to the applicant is that of catching hold.
The discrepancy between the prosecution version and the medical
evidence creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the
prosecution story. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for more
than five 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, Dilkhush Chaudhary 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;
BAIL No. 14462 of 2026
3

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.

May 7, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…