Allahabad High Court
ANJESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anjesh, accused in Crime No. 126 of 2025 under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no medical background, and that the post‑mortem report could not determine the cause of death, with the viscera report still pending and not part of the case diary. The State could not produce any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and failed to show a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The court noted the applicant had been in custody for over eleven months, had no criminal history, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 105 of the IPC in the absence of corroborative evidence and with a prolonged pre‑trial detention
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- Section 105 IPC
- pre‑trial detention
- post‑mortem report
- lack of evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25289 of 2025
Anjesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Despite time having been granted to the learned AGA on 25.9.2025 to
produce viscera report of the deceased, no report has been produced.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Kotawali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad during pendency
of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant neither runs any medical clinic
nor administered any injection to the wife of the informant. The applicant
has no concern with the alleged occurrence. As per the postmortem report,
cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved and
sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.5.2025 having no criminal history.
In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
BAIL No. 25289 of 2025
2
Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, cause of death
could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained
confined for more than eleven 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.
7. Let the applicant, Anjesh 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.
8. 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 5, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…