Allahabad High Court

RITIK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ritik Kumar in a criminal case (Crime No. 190 of 2025) where he alleged false implication. The applicant argued that he was not arrested at the scene, the informant’s statement under Section 180 was not an eye‑witness account, and no witness disclosed the vehicle number linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The Court found no corroborative evidence, noted the applicant’s clean record and four‑month pre‑trial detention, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the absence of corroborative evidence linking him to the offence
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released on bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 180
Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 125(B), 281

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
false implication
lack of evidence
Section 180
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23294 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Dixit, Rajendra Kumar
Srivastava, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned
AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2025, under Sections 281,
125(B), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Uttar, District- Firozabad, during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant was neither arrested at the spot,
nor was he involved in, or had any concern with, the alleged incident. As per
the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he was
not an eye-witness to the alleged incident and the vehicle number was
mentioned on the basis of information received by him. Placing reliance
upon the statements of the witnesses, namely, Laxman and Pankaj, it is
further submitted that neither of them disclosed the vehicle number. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is in jail since 16.5.2026 having no criminal
antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

4. Learned AGA for the State has 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 applicant was not arrested at the spot. As per
the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he was
not an eye-witness to the alleged incident and vehicle number was
BAIL No. 23294 of 2026
2

mentioned on the basis of information received by him. As per the
statements of the witnesses, namely, Laxman and Pankaj, the vehicle
number has not been disclosed by them. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more
than four 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 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 crime be
released on bail on 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;

(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.

October 1, 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…