Allahabad High Court

RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant Rahul was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 223 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC. He is not named in the FIR but his name appears in the confessional statement of a co‑accused, and he has been in custody since 24‑06‑2026. The applicant pleaded that he has no prior criminal record, the maximum punishment is five years, and he will cooperate with the trial if released on bail. The State opposed bail but did not produce any material facts indicating a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, flight, or any antecedent that would justify denial of bail. Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that bail is the rule and jail the exception under Article 21, the Court found no exceptional circumstances to refuse bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions and a personal bond with sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR but appearing in a co‑accused's statement.
Whether any exceptional circumstances exist that justify denial of bail under the applicable provisions of the IPC.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether the applicant has a criminal history or flight risk that would preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Article 21
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
IPC offences
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28858 of 2026

Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipin Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sadhana Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been
received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on
merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not
named in the First Information Report. The name of the applicant has
surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Pratap. The co-
accused Rajat Banerjee has already been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 14.9.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 28322 of 2026. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that maximum punishment is five years. The applicant
has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2026
and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
will cooperate in the trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute factual matrix of the case.

5. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to
indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would
disentitle the applicant for Bail.
BAIL No. 28858 of 2026
2

6. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the
investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well
recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article
21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA for the State has not
shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail
to the applicant.

8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA
for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses
or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence.

9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA for the State.

10. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or
circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger
interests of the public or State.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Rahul involved in Case Crime No. 223 of 2025,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station
Lohamandi, District Agra be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
BAIL No. 28858 of 2026
3

court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant
shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 29, 2026
VMA

Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…