Allahabad High Court

ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

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

Summary

The High Court disposed of two connected bail applications filed by Rohit and Suneel @ Girdhari, who were named in an FIR for murder under Sections 103(1) and 238(K) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants argued that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, that the alleged application by the deceased (who was illiterate) is doubtful, and that there is no corroborative evidence linking them to the crime. The State opposed bail but did not refute the factual contentions. The Court found the alleged application by the deceased prima facie doubtful, noted the absence of corroborative evidence, and considered the applicants' clean criminal record and the completion of the investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the applicants are entitled to bail, subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the murder charge.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a murder case where the evidence is purely circumstantial and lacks corroboration.
Whether the alleged application by the deceased, claimed to be fabricated, affects the likelihood of the applicants' involvement.
Whether the applicants' lack of prior criminal history and the completion of the investigation justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238(K)

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
murder
property dispute
no criminal history
sureties
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29146 of 2026

Rohit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite

Party(s)

Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29035 of 2026:
Suneel @ Girdhari
Versus
State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Nandan, Vikas
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. As both the bail applications are connected and arise from
the same FIR therefore both the bail applications are being
disposed of by common order.

2. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the
State.

3. Both the instant bail applications have been filed seeking
release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2026,
under Sections 103(1), 238(K) BNS, Police Station Bahjoi,
District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit, however
applicants are named in the FIR but it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged
by police personnel.
BAIL No. 29146 of 2026
2

5. He next submits, as per the FIR deceased who was nephew
of applicant Sunil @ Girdhari and cousin brother of applicant
Rohit, before his death on 19.06.2026 moved an application
against applicants that they can eliminate him but deceased was
illiterate person and it reflects, application dated 19.06.2026
allegedly moved by the deceased is fabricated one and a
specific averment has been made by applicant in this regard in
paragraph-30 of the bail application of applicant Sunil @
Girdhari. He next submits, State in the counter affidavit did not
properly controvert this fact and did not state that deceased was
literate person.

6. He further argued, except motive and application dated
19.06.2026 and statement of applicants before the police there
is no other evidence against applicants on record.

7. He further argued, merely on the basis of above evidences in
absence of any other corroborative it cannot be said that
applicants committed the murder of deceased.

8. He further argued, applicants are not having criminal history
and in the present matter they are in jail since 22.06.2026.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by
learned counsel for the applicants.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.

11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant Sunil is
the uncle of deceased while applicant Rohit is his cousin
brother and as per allegation due to the property dispute they
committed his murder. According to the prosecution, about two
days before on 19.06.2026 deceased himself moved an
application before the police that applicants may commit his
murder but in paragraph-30 of the bail application moved by
applicant Sunil, it has been subsequently averred that deceased
BAIL No. 29146 of 2026
3

was illiterate person and in the counter affidavit State did not
properly controvert this fact. In the counter affidavit State also
did not disclose that actually deceased was literate person and
application dated 19.06.2026 was moved by him. Considering
the averment made in paragraph-30 of the bail application of
applicant Sunil and counter affidavit filed by State the
application dated 19.06.2026 prima facie appears to be
doubtful. Further, even this Court finds merit in the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in absence
of any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of
statement of applicants recorded by the I.O. and motive prima
facie it cannot be said that applicants committed murder of the
deceased.

12. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and
in the present matter they are in jail since 22.06.2026
and investigation of the case has been completed and charge
sheet has been filed.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be
released on bail.

14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, both the bail applications are allowed.

15. Let the applicants - Rohit and Suneel @ Girdhari be
released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing personal
bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the
dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
BAIL No. 29146 of 2026
4

facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-
social activity.

16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the
prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this
Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited
to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of bail applications and the said observations shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

September 21, 2026
Shahroz

(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…