Allahabad High Court

IMRANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Imran, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No.56 of 2026) under sections 318(4), 111(6), 317(2), 338, 340(2) of the B.N.S. and section 66D of the Income Tax Act. Imran alleged that the recovery of a mobile phone, two pass‑books, an Aadhaar card and Rs.750 was false and that there was no independent witness linking him to the alleged offences. The State, represented by the Assistant Government Advocate, opposed bail but could not rebut the applicant’s claim of lack of corroborative evidence. The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for more than six months, that the charge‑sheet had been filed, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay. Consequently, the Court held that Imran was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses. The bail order was pronounced on 11 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the B.N.S. and the Income Tax Act
Whether the lack of an independent witness and corroborative evidence justifies the grant of bail
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if released, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or delay the trial

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 111(6), 317(2), 318(4), 338, 340(2)
Income Tax Act — s. 66D

Subjects

bail
false implication
lack of evidence
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
Income Tax Act
surety
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28395 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalji Yadav, Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

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

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.56 of 2026, under Sections 318(4),
111(6), 317(2), 338, 340(2) B.N.S. and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station-
Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of a mobile phone, two pass-
books, an Aadhar card and Rs.750/- has been shown from the applicant.
There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered
items do not link the applicant with any offence. No amount relating to the
alleged transaction has been credited to the bank account of the applicant.
The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The applicant is
neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of
such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in
paragraphs-2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 02.03.2026 and if he is enlarged on bail, he 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.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the
BAIL No. 28395 of 2026
2

alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for
more than six months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 Imran, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail on his 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;
(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…