Allahabad High Court
BHUAL GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhual Gupta in a murder case (Crime No. 36 of 2026) where the applicant was not named in the FIR and was allegedly implicated only on the basis of three witness statements that he was seen leaving the scene. The applicant argued that there was no eye‑witness, no weapon recovered, and no prior criminal record, and that the charge sheet had already been filed, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State opposed bail but could not refute the factual contentions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024), as well as the policy on bail to de‑congest prisons, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, not named in the FIR and lacking direct eyewitness evidence, is entitled to bail under the IPC and CrPC.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence presented justify denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 238(A), 238(B), 3(5), 61(2)A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- murder trial
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- overcrowded prisons
- presumption of innocence
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15164 of 2026
Bhual Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar, Ravi Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pranvesh, Praveen Maurya
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Maurya, learned
counsel for the first informant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 36 of 2026, under
Sections 103(1), 238(A), 238(B), 3(5), 61(2)A BNS, Police Station-
Pharenda, District Maharajganj.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was
not named in the FIR, wherein allegation has been that the deceased was
missing since 02.02.2026. Thereafter on recovery of dead body of the
deceased on 06.02.2026, an application dated 06.02.2026 was given by
mother of the deceased to the police expressing doubt over seven persons
and the applicant was not included in those 7 persons. Subsequently, co-
accused Chandni, Pradeep and Mathura were arrested by the police even
they did not name the applicant in their confessional statements.
Thereafter on 11.03.2026 which is more than one month of the incident,
three witnesses Pancham Yadav, Anil Singh and Sadabriksh Chauhan
have stated that they had seen the applicant leaving hurriedly towards the
village, only on that basis, he has been falsely implicated. There is no eye
witness regarding involvement of the applicant in committing murder of
the deceased or lastly seen in the company of the deceased. He further
submitted that there is no recovery of any weapon on the pointing out of
BAIL No. 15164 of 2026
2
the applicant. It is lastly submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the
police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The
applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since
13.03.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as
learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid fact.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Bhual Gupta involved in the aforementioned crime
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, with
the following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
BAIL No. 15164 of 2026
3
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the
applicant and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.
10. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
11. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Maharajganj Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within
24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC
685.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 5, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…