Allahabad High Court

JAUNIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

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

Summary

The applicant, Jauni, was arrested in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25210 of 2026 in connection with Crime No. 245 of 2026, alleged to have participated in an assault that resulted in the death of the informant's son. The FIR was lodged on 31 May 2026, four days after the incident, and the prosecution later altered the charges, removing Section 103(1) and adding Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence, and that a co‑accused, Monika, had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The Court, noting the belated FIR, lack of evidence against the applicant, his clean record, and the principle of parity, held that he is entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence justify granting bail to the applicant.
Whether the applicant’s role is distinct from that of the co‑accused who has already been granted bail, warranting parity.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if released, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 105, 3(5), 351(3)

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
lack of corroborative evidence
parity
criminal antecedents
trial delay
evidence tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25210 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Tej Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Pandey, G.A., Ramesh Kumar
Pandey

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, counsel
for the informant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 245 of 2026, under Sections 105,
351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Murad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad,
during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
27.5.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 31.5.2026
under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation,
section 103(1) BNS was deleted and section 105 BNS was added. As per the
allegations contained in the first information report, the applicant along with
four other accused allegedly assaulted the informant's son by lathis and
dandas. The informant's son succumbed to his injuries while being taken to
hospital. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained seven
injuries, out of which injury no.1 was on the head region, whereas remaining
injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause
of death is coma due to antemortem head injury. Further, as per the
statements of the son of the deceased, namely Ujjawal and the eye-witness
namely Mohit Thakur, it was the co-accused Manish, who allegedly pushed
the son of the informant during scuffle, as a result of which, he sustained
BAIL No. 25210 of 2026
2

injuries and subsequently died. It is contended that the role of the applicant
is distinguishable from that of co-accused Manish. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next
contended that the co-accused Monika has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 15.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.30288 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
21.6.2026 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 first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had sustained seven
injuries, out of which injury no.1 was on the head region, whereas remaining
injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause
of death is coma due to antemortem head injury. Further, as per the
statements of the son of the deceased, namely Ujjawal and the eye-witness
namely Mohit Thakur, it was the co-accused Manish, who allegedly pushed
the son of the informant during scuffle, as a result of which, he sustained
injuries and subsequently died. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the co-accused
Monika has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no
criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months
and after submission of the charge sheet 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 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 Jauni, 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;
BAIL No. 25210 of 2026
3

(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.

September 24, 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…