Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KOHLIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of corroborative evidence and any reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, or flight, the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 CrPC.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Rahul Kohli, accused in a case under IPC Sections 105 and 115(2). The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged belatedly, there were no eye‑witnesses, and the only statements were from persons who learned of the death second‑hand. The court observed that no corroborative evidence linked the accused to the offence and that he had already been in custody for over two months with no prospect of a speedy trial. It found no reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 CrPC in the absence of corroborative evidence and with a delayed FIR.
- Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight that would justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483 CrPC
- non‑bailable offence
- lack of evidence
- anticipatory apprehension
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15524 of 2026
Rahul Kohli
.....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 Shashank Shekhar
Pandey, 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. Criminal
history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 24 of the affidavit.
The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2026 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
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 15524 of 2026
2
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. 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- Rahul Kohli, involved in the aforesaid case, be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.
May 14, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…