Allahabad High Court

KAMLESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamlesh and Shailendra in Criminal Case No. 424 of 2024, where they were charged under Sections 105 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting the son of an informant, who later died from his injuries. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel while drinking, and that they sustained injuries themselves, indicating no pre‑meditation or intent. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicants' submissions, including the eye‑witness statement and the lack of prior enmity. After reviewing the record, the Court found no reasonable apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee, especially given their clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the Court ordered that both applicants be released on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 105 and 352 IPC considering the nature of the offence and the facts of the case
Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight that would justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 105 IPC
Section 352 IPC
false implication
pre‑trial detention
witness tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24638 of 2025

Kamlesh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 105, 352
B.N.S., Police Station Reoti, District Ballia during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the
applicants are alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. The son of
the informant succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital. As per
the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained eight injuries. In the
opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to ante
mortem injuries. It is next contended that in the alleged incident the
applicant no. 1 had also sustained injuries. The medical report of the
applicant no. 1 is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application. Placing reliance on the statement of the eye witness
namely Rani Devi, it is contended that the applicants and the deceased
Baliram both were drinking alcohol and due to sudden quarrel the incident
had happened. It is contended that no prior enmity exists between the parties.
The applicants had neither requisite knowledge nor intent to commit the
offence. The applicants are in jail since 10.10.2024 having no criminal
history and if they are released on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 24638 of 2025
2

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that in the alleged incident the applicant
no. 1 had also sustained injuries. As per the statement of the eye witness
namely Rani Devi, the applicants and the deceased were drinking liquor. The
incident occurred due to sudden quarrel without any premeditation. The
applicants have no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicants have
remained confined for more than one year and seven months and after
submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State
that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants
are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicants- Kamlesh and Shailendra, involved in the aforesaid
case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that they:

(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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 12, 2026
SKT/-

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…