Allahabad High Court
MAHESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail, given the FIR delay, absence of medical corroboration, and lack of criminal history, and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Mahesh Kumar applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 41 of 2026) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 352, 74, 64(1), 115(2) and 333. He claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was lodged two and a half months after the incident and lacked medical evidence, and highlighted his clean criminal record and cooperation with the trial. The State opposed the bail but did not present substantive counter‑arguments. The court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, and concluded that these factors created a reasonable doubt justifying bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and claim of innocence warrant bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
- Whether the nature of the offences under IPC sections 352, 74, 64(1), 115(2) and 333 precludes bail during trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 333, 352, 64(1), 74
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- IPC sections
- presumption of innocence
- trial pending
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16382 of 2026
Mahesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kuldeep Singh, Vipin Vinod
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.9 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2026, under Sections 352,
74, 64(1), 115(2), 333 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District
Mirzapur, 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 FIR is delayed by two and a half months and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
5. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that
applicant is stated to have entered the maternal house of the victim in an
inebriated state, whereby the fact was mentioned in the District Control
Room, as the information was received by them on 7.11.2025 at about
3:58:26 am. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is
a married lady and obviously is major.
6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 14.3.2026 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. 16382 of 2026
2
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by
counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the
incident and 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.
9. Let the applicant- Mahesh Kumar, 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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…