Allahabad High Court

RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Aditya Gupta in a case involving alleged assault and homicide under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants claimed they were falsely implicated and highlighted the belated filing of the FIR, vague allegations, and lack of clarity about their role. The court noted the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of the initial medical treatment records in the case diary, and the applicants' clean criminal record. It found no reasonable apprehension that the applicants would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or delay the trial. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicants be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and vague allegations justify granting bail.
Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code and criminal procedure.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
vague allegations
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27894 of 2026

Ramesh Chandra Gupta And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Girijesh Kumar Gupta, Ram Chandra
Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vikas Narayan Rai

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Narayan Rai, counsel for the
informant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, 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
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2026, under Sections 115(2),
351(3), 352, 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ballia, during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
25.02.2026. As per the allegations contained in the first information report,
the applicants along with two named accused persons are alleged to have
assaulted the brother of the informant. As per the postmortem report, the
brother of the informant was admitted at Trauma Centre and Superspeciality
Hospital, IMS BHU, Varanasi on 26.02.2026 at 20.05 hours. Thereafter, the
first information report was lodged on 28.02.2026 at 02.11 hours. The
brother of the informant died on 28.02.2026 at 23.18 hours. As per the
postmortem report, the deceased sustained four injuries; namely- (1)
surgically stapled wound of length 20 cms with 19 surgical stapler pins in
situ present on the abdomen 20 cms below the sternum along the midline, (2)
multiple blister wounds of size ranging between 2 cms x 2 cms to 3 cms x 2
cms present all over the left arm and forearm, (3) blackish contusion of size
8 cms x 6 cms present in the front left knee joint in the midline and (4)
multiple brownish-black scabbed abrasion of size ranging between 1 cm x 1
cm to 2 cms x 1 cm present in the front of left lower leg extending between
left knee to left ankle. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to
BAIL No. 27894 of 2026
2

septic shock as a result of intestinal perforation and this is sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The nature of injuries shows
that the deceased was provided treatment prior to death, however the initial
medical papers in respect thereof do not form part of the case diary. The
delay in lodging the first information report in the facts of the present case is
fatal to the prosecution case. Vague and general allegations have been
levelled against the applicants. At this stage, there is no clarity with regard to
exact role of the applicants. The applicants are in jail since
06.07.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, they are enlarged on
bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have 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. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the
applicants. At this stage, there is no clarity with regard to exact role of the
applicants. The initial treatment provided to the deceased prior to his death
does not form part of the case diary. Further, the applicants have no criminal
antecedents and remained confined for more than two 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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicants Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Aditya Gupta Urf
Ghantu Urf Aditya Raj, 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 they :

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(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 11, 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…