Allahabad High Court

DEEPU @ SURAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Deepu @ Suraj Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (CrPC 108 of 2026) under Sections 105 and 115(2) of the IPC. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged belatedly, there were no eye‑witnesses, and the only statements were from informants who learned of the death second‑hand. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. After reviewing the record, the Court found the prosecution’s case to be weak, the applicant had no criminal antecedent, and he had already been in custody for over two months. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a non‑bailable offence where the FIR is belated and there is no eye‑witness or corroborative evidence.
Whether the State has shown a reasonable apprehension that the accused might tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay if released.
Whether the applicant’s right to liberty outweighs the interest of justice in the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2)

Subjects

bail
non‑bailable offence
false implication
lack of evidence
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
right to liberty

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15234 of 2026

Deepu @ Suraj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Daya Shanker Pandey, Prachi Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned
AGA 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. 108 of 2026,
under Sections 105, 115(2) BNS, Police Station Phase-1, District Gautam
Buddha Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. On 02.03.2026, the informant was called to
the police station for identification of the dead body. The inquest and
postmortem of the husband of the informant were conducted on 02.03.2026
and 03.03.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the first information report was
lodged against the applicant and another on 03.03.2026 at 17:48 hours.
There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The witnesses namely,
Kuldeep and Manish have merely stated that they came to know about the
death of the husband of the informant on the basis of information received. It
is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged incident and has
been implicated on the basis of suspicion. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 04.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
BAIL No. 15234 of 2026
2

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. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. As per the
statement of witnesses namely, Kuldeep and Manish, they came to know
about the death of the husband of the informant on the basis of information
received. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months
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 Deepu @ Suraj Kumar, 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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…