Allahabad High Court

YOGESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Yogesh Kumar, who was charged in Criminal Case No. 100 of 2026 under IPC sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 64(1). The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, being the brother of co‑accused Pramod Kumar, and that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay with no corroborative evidence and the victim refusing a medical examination. The court observed that a matrimonial dispute existed between the co‑accused and the informant, the FIR was belated, there was no material linking the applicant to the offence, and he had no prior criminal record. Finding no real risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, Yogesh Kumar was released on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions of non‑tampering, non‑pressurising of witnesses and regular appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the nature of the offences and the surrounding circumstances
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence justify granting bail
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 64(1), 85

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
lack of evidence
clean criminal record
witness intimidation
maternity dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24975 of 2026

Yogesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pal, Girish Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Himanshu Mishra

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned
counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2026, under Sections 85,
115(2), 352, 351(2), 64(1) of the B.N.S., Police Station- New Agra,
Commissionerate Agra, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the brother of
co-accused Pramod Kumar and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. A matrimonial dispute exists between the co-accused Pramod
Kumar (husband) and the informant (wife). The instant prosecution is
only for the purpose of harassment. The applicant had not acted
indecently with the informant/ victim.The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 21.01.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged
on 18.03.2026. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. The victim refused to get her internally
examined. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 07.05.2026
having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid
submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 24975 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. A matrimonial dispute existed between co-accused Pramod
Kumar (husband) and the informant (wife). At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover,
the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has 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, Yogesh Kumar 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…