Allahabad High Court

AMAN ALIAS AMAANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, given the belated FIR, lack of substantive evidence, the applicant’s clean record and no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aman (alias Amaan) in a case under several IPC sections relating to alleged indecent assault and related offences. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing out a four‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any indecent video or photographs, and that the only recovered items (a mobile phone and Rs.2000) belonged to him and did not link him to the crime. The State could not refute these points, and the court noted that a co‑accused, Waseem, had already been granted bail. The applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for over two months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Finding no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for denying bail
Whether the lack of material evidence (no indecent video, photographs, or incriminating recovery) justifies granting bail
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants bail for the applicant

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(B), 115(2), 308(5), 318(4), 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
IPC
false implication
delay in FIR
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15128 of 2026

Aman Alias Amaan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aniket Agarwal, Saurabh Kesarwani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2026, under Sections 111(2)(B),
318(4), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 308(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Civil Lines,
District- Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have taken place on
24.2.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 28.2.2026.
The inordinate in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. No indecent video or photographs of the husband of the
informant has been recovered by the investigating officer. No amount has
been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant has no
concern with the alleged incident. Recovery of a mobile phone and
Rs.2000/- has been shown from the applicant. It is contended that the said
mobile phone and Indian currency belong to the applicant. There is no
independent to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone and Indian
currency do not connect the applicant with any offence. The applicant is
neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of
such syndicate. It is next contended that co-accused Waseem has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.11669 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The
applicant is in jail since 1.3.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is
BAIL No. 15128 of 2026
2

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.

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. No indecent video or photographs of the husband of the informant
has been recovered by the investigating officer. There is no independent to
the alleged recovery. The co-accused Waseem has been granted bail by this
Court. 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, Aman Alias Amaan, 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.

May 5, 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…