Allahabad High Court

RITIK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the FIR was lodged belatedly, there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation exists.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ritik Kumar in a criminal case (Crime No. 37 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 105, 351(3), 191(2) and 3(5) of the IPC. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and that the FIR was lodged belatedly with no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim of delayed FIR and lack of evidence. The Court observed that the applicant’s name only appeared in the informant’s statement under Section 180 and that a delayed FIR weakens the prosecution’s case, noting the applicant’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR justify granting bail.
Whether the lack of corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offences warrants bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if released, would tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or delay the trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 180
Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 191(2), 3(5), 351(3)

Subjects

bail
FIR delay
false implication
Section 180
Indian Penal Code
pre‑trial detention
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15743 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar Pandey, Udai Shankar
Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Singh

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh,
counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the
State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2026, under Sections 105, 351(3),
191(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Jangipur, District- Ghazipur, during the
pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 9.3.2026 at 9.30 p.m. The son of
the informant died on 10.3.2026 at 7.00 a.m. The first information report
was lodged on 10.3.2026 at 9.40 hours on the basis of information allegedly
furnished by two persons, namely, Sagar Rajbhar and Krishna Bind. It is
contended that the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. As per the allegations contained in the first information
report, the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The name of
the applicant surfaced subsequently in the statement of the informant
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Thereafter, the witnesses Sagar
Rajbhar and Krishna Bind in their respective statements also alleged that
apart from two named accused, the applicant along with two others was also
involved in the alleged incident. Had the applicant actually been involved in
the alleged occurrence, his name would have found mention in the first
information report itself. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
BAIL No. 15743 of 2026
2

link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 11.3.2026
having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
bail but could not satisfactorily 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. The applicant was not named in the first information. The name of
the applicant surfaced subsequently in the statement of the informant
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Had the applicant actually been
involved in the alleged occurrence, his name would have found mention in
the first information report itself. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has
no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than two
months and 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 Ritik 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.

May 14, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…