Allahabad High Court

ARJUNversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arjun, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 12 of 2025) under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed false implication, noting a significant delay between the alleged incident and the FIR, and highlighted that the post‑mortem report could not determine the cause of death and the forensic lab report found no poison. The court observed that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s version and there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence. Given the applicant’s clean record, four‑month pre‑trial detention, and lack of any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court found no justification to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending murder trial.
Whether the lack of medical corroboration and forensic evidence defeats the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 105

Subjects

bail
false implication
post‑mortem report
forensic science laboratory report
no criminal antecedents
trial delay
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15360 of 2026

Arjun
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niketa Sharma, Rahul Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station Mahua Kheda, District Aligarh during the pendency of the
trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 11.12.2024. The first information report was lodged on
08.01.2025. The inordinate delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to
the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along
with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to have assaulted the
son of the informant. The son of the informant succumbed to the injuries on
12.12.2024 during the course of treatment. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for
chemical analysis. As per the FSL report dated 01.02.2025, no poison was
found. It is contended that the postmortem report does not support the
prosecution case. The death of son of the informant cannot be attributed to
the present incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2025
having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 15360 of 2026
2

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report,
the applicant along with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to
have assaulted the son of the informant. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death could not be ascertained. As per the FSL report dated
01.02.2025, no poison was found. The medical evidence does not support
the prosecution version. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of
early conclusion of trial, and 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,
therefore, 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- Arjun, 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 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 6, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…