Allahabad High Court
SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no evidence linking him to the offence and no risk of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Sushil Kumar Shukla, who was implicated in a case involving alleged fraudulent sale deeds and multiple IPC offences. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay, and there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged crimes. The State could not refute these points or demonstrate any risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay. After reviewing the record, the Court found no substantive basis to deny bail and noted the applicant had already been in custody for over a month. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 CrPC when the accused is not named in the FIR and there is no corroborative evidence.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of evidentiary linkage justify granting bail.
- Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 324(5), 331(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 483
- FIR
- investigative delay
- evidence
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14569 of 2026
Sushil Kumar Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prakash Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned brief holder for the State-respondent.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2026,
under Sections 331(4), 324(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS,
Police Station Panki, District Western (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar)
during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The alleged sale-deeds were executed on 08.08.2024
and 09.09.2024. The first information report was lodged on 12.01.2026. The
inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. The applicant is neither seller, nor purchaser nor the
marginal witness of the alleged sale deeds. No amount was credited in the
bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of any
illicit transaction. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 16 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2026
and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned brief holder for the State 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
BAIL No. 14569 of 2026
2
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The first information report was lodged belatedly. The
applicant is neither seller, nor purchaser nor the marginal witness of the
alleged sale deeds. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained
confined for more than one month 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 the merits of the case, I am
of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Sushil Kumar Shukla, involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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; 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.)
May 7, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…