Allahabad High Court
PUSPENDRA @ PAWANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Puspendra @ Pawan, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 83 of 2025) under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed twelve days after the incident, no post‑mortem was conducted, and the only evidence linking him was a CDR that did not place him at the scene. The statement of the deceased’s son was recorded sixteen days after the incident, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of a post‑mortem report, and the weak evidentiary basis, and found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of a post‑mortem report justify granting bail.
- Whether the CDR evidence and delayed statement of the deceased’s son are sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- post‑mortem
- CDR evidence
- prima facie case
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2100 of 2026
Puspendra @ Pawan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivang Shukla, Shubhang
Shukla
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.125 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant
as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
3(5) BNS, Police Station Koshi Kala, District Mathura, during the pendency
of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about twelve days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The applicant is stated to be the paramour of main accused
person Smt. Aarti. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that no postmortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The deceased
got electrocuted, as such, was cremated. The applicant has simply been made
an accused on the basis of CDR, whereby presence of applicant and co-
accused Smt. Aarti alongwith the deceased person was found within the area
of one and the same tower. The said CDR does not indicate that applicant
was present at the place of occurrence.
BAIL No. 2100 of 2026
2
6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement
of son of the deceased person has been recorded as an afterthought after a
delay of 16 days from the incident, i.e. on 3.2.2025. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 2.2.2025. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
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 institution of FIR and there being no postmortem
examination report and even the statement of son of the deceased person
having been recorded after a delay of 16 days from the incident, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie 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- Puspendra @ Pawan, be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…