Allahabad High Court

PRAVENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence and given material inconsistencies, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pravendra Singh, who is alleged to be involved in a criminal offence arising from a land dispute. The applicant argued that he is the brother‑in‑law of the informant and uncle of the victim, and highlighted material inconsistencies between the First Information Report and the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, as well as a medical report showing no injuries. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points or demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The Court found that no corroborative evidence linked the applicant to the offence, noted his four‑month pre‑trial confinement, and concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of misuse of liberty. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions against tampering, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in view of inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and lack of corroborative material.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.
Whether the duration of pre‑trial detention justifies granting bail.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 180, 183

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
evidentiary inconsistency
land dispute
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24242 of 2026

Pravendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishika Raj Singhal, Shivendra Raj
Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Birendra Singh, G.A., Mohd Shahrukh,
Vinayak Ranjan, Yash Pratap Singh

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

1. Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present. Earlier on
13.08.2026, the case was adjourned in absence of counsel for the
informant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the brother-in-
law (Dewar) of the informant and the uncle of the victim. A land dispute
exists between the applicant and his brother (husband of the informant).
In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the report of the Lekhpal
dated 28.04.2026, annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the bail application. It
is next contended that the applicant had not acted indecently with the
victim. There are material inconsistencies between the first information
report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS, on the one hand, and the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 183 of the BNSS, on the other hand. The said material
inconsistencies discredits the prosecution case, at this stage. As per the
medical examination report dated 19.04.2026, no external injury was
found on the body of the victim. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail
since 19.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 24242 of 2026
2

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 as per the report of the Lekhpal dated
28.04.2026, a land dispute exists between the applicant and his brother.
There are material inconsistencies between the first information report
and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 B.N.S.S.
and 183 B.N.S.S. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant has presently
remained confined for more than four 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 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, Pravendra Singh involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.

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.

(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 8, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…