Allahabad High Court

CHHOTELAL ALIAS DINESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, given the belated FIR, vague charges, lack of independent evidence, the applicant’s clean record and parity with co‑accused, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chhotelal alias Dinesh in a case under several IPC sections and B.N.S. 61(2). The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the allegations were vague, and there was no independent witness linking him to the recovered items, asserting false implication. He also pointed to the bail granted to co‑accused Soni alias Nisha and Mahendra Nath, seeking parity. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court found the FIR delay, lack of substantive evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused sufficient to grant bail, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and vague allegations justify granting bail
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the basis of parity with co‑accused who were released
Whether there is any risk of evidence tampering, trial delay, or witness intimidation warranting denial of bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 61(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 123, 305, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
FIR delay
false implication
parity
no criminal antecedents
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14620 of 2026

Chhotelal Alias Dinesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Dubey
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 Tiwari,
learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2025, under Sections 110, 123,
305, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) r/w 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station-
Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
27.8.2025 and 30.8.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
01.9.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against
the applicant. False recovery of Rs.4000/-, a mobile phone and an Aadhar
card has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. The recovered articles do not connect the applicant
with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Soni
alias Nisha and Mahendra Nath have been granted bail by this Court vide
orders dated 27.11.2025 an 26.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.41976 of 2025 an 7318 of 2026 respectively. Applicant
claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 10.9.2025 having no criminal
history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 14620 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the
applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. I
dentically placed co-accused Soni alias Nisha and Mahendra Nath have been
granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for almost eight months and after
submission of the 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 Chhotelal Alias Dinesh, 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 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.

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…