Allahabad High Court
PRASHANT KUMAR @ TILLUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Prashant Kumar @ Tillu was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 245 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, including a alleged deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakh in his account. The applicant pleaded innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated and that his criminal history had been fully explained. He had been in custody since 9 July 2026 and sought bail during the pendency of trial, assuring cooperation with the proceedings. The State opposed bail, but the court observed that antecedents alone cannot justify continued detention and that there was no cogent evidence against the applicant. Finding a prima facie case for bail, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges and his prior criminal history
- Whether the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to justify continued detention of the accused
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- presumption of innocence
- antecedents
- sureties
- trial court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29025 of 2026
Prashant Kumar @ Tillu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 90 out of 115)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 245 of 2026, under Sections
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station
Noorpur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is
a rustic person and has nothing to do with the said deposition of Rs. 1.5 lakh
in his account. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands
explained. He is languishing in jail since 9.7.2026 and he is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
6. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
BAIL No. 29025 of 2026
2
applicant has been properly explained.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, there being no cogent evidence against the
applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Prashant Kumar @ Tillu, who is involved in
aforementioned 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 17, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…