Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant Rahul sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 249 of 2026) under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed innocence, alleging false implication and a ten‑day delay in filing the FIR without explanation. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the delay, the applicant’s clean record, and his willingness to cooperate. Without expressing any view on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) IPC given the alleged false implication and delay in FIR.
- Whether a ten‑day delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient ground to justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and undertaking to cooperate warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(2), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- prima facie
- sureties
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29550 of 2026
Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.41 out of 80 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, 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.249 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
351(2) BNS, Police Station Naugawan Sadat, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha),
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. The
FIR is delayed by about ten days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The allegations are per se false and it is a clear cut case of
false implication. The victim is major aged about 22 years. The applicant has
no criminal history and is in jail since 5.7.2026. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay of ten days in institution of FIR, and without
BAIL No. 29550 of 2026
2
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.
7. Let the applicant- Rahul, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…