Allahabad High Court

DIPAK BAHELIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 April 2026
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 Dipak Baheliya, who was arrested in connection with the murder of an informant's uncle. The applicant alleged false implication, noting that the post‑mortem report identified a single fatal head injury (injury no. 4) and that he was not specifically linked to that injury, while his co‑accused Lalji had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight, nor did it refute the applicant’s claim of a vague role. The Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record, had been in custody for over a year, and that the charge‑sheet had been filed, making a speedy trial unlikely. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offence.
Whether the applicant’s alleged role in the homicide justifies denial of bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.
Whether parity with the co‑accused who was granted bail mandates granting bail to the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105

Subjects

bail
false implication
post‑mortem report
parity with co‑accused
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
no criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28676 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Fakhruzzaman, G.A.

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

1. Case is listed peremptorily. Learned counsel for informant is not present.
Earlier also on 07.04.2026 learned counsel for the informant was not present.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station Samthar, District Jhansi during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 17.02.2025 at about 11.00 p.m. The uncle of the informant was
taken to Emergency, Medicine Department, GRMC, Gwalior, where the
attending doctor recorded alleged history of trauma due to assault by
someone at the aforesaid date and time. The first information report came to
be lodged on 18.02.2025 against the applicant and co-accused Lalji. As per
the first information report, the applicant and co-accused Lalji are alleged to
have assaulted the uncle of the informant by an iron rod. The uncle of the
informant died on 22.02.2025. As per the postmortem report, the injured
sustained eight injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of "death was
due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury". It is contended
that injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were on other parts of the body, whereas
injury no. 4 was a fracture of right parietal temporal bone. The said injury is
the fatal injury. It is next contended that the incident is alleged to have taken
place during the night hours by unknown persons as reflected from the
BAIL No. 28676 of 2025
2

admission slip of the hospital. A vague and general role has been assigned
to the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned as the principal
offender who caused injury no. 4 to the deceased. Viscera report is not part
of the case diary. Further, identically placed co-accused Lalji has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 24321 of 2025, Lalji v. State of U.P. The
applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025 having no
criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, the
injured sustained eight injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of
"death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury".
Injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were on other parts of the body, whereas
injury no. 4 was a fracture of right parietal temporal bone. A vague and
general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been
assigned as the principal offender who caused injury no. 4 to the deceased.
Viscera report is not part of the case diary. Identically placed co-accused
Lalji has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
one year and one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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,
therefore, 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- Dipak Baheliya, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,
BAIL No. 28676 of 2025
3

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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.)
April 23, 2026
SKT/-

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…