Allahabad High Court
BRIJMOHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Brijmohan, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 0038 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 69, 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed he was falsely implicated, stating that the alleged promise to marry the victim was unfulfilled and that no photographs or videos of the victim had been recovered. The State opposed the bail but offered no substantive counter‑arguments. The court examined the lack of material evidence, the applicant’s clean criminal record, and his willingness to cooperate with the trial. Finding that the applicant had made out a case for bail, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 69, 352 and 351(3) of the IPC in the absence of concrete evidence such as photographs or videos.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and clean record justify bail during trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3) BNS, 352, 69
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 69
- Section 352
- Section 351(3) BNS
- trial
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15255 of 2026
Brijmohan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bal Mukund Singh, Shri Prakash
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 49 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Bal Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0038 of 2026, under Sections 69,
352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Dakshintola, District Mau, during the
pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The only bone of contention is that applicant promised to
marry the victim after divorcing his wife but did not comply with the said
promise and is even stated to have video-recorded and clicked certain
photographs of the victim. There is no recovery of any photo or video, as
such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no clinching
evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning.
The victim is major, being 26 years old.
5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 25.3.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 15255 of 2026
2
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
6. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no recovery of any photo or video of the
victim and there being no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant
misled the victim from the beginning, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Brijmohan, who is involved in aforementioned case
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 subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…