Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial, provided he furnishes a personal bond, two sureties and complies with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rahul Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a case involving multiple IPC offences including kidnapping, extortion and assault. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that no incriminating material was found on him, while the prosecution alleged his involvement in a financial dispute. After hearing counsel for both sides, the court examined the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The court concluded that the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions. The order expressly refrains from commenting on the merits of the case and directs that any breach of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for offences under IPC sections 318, 319, 336, 340, 61, 351, 352, 3 and 338
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 3, 318, 319, 336, 338, 340, 351, 352, 61
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- presumption of innocence
- sureties
- conditions of bail
- criminal procedure
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30420 of 2026
Rahul Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Pawan Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent and perused the record of the case.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 319(2),
336(4), 340(2), 61(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5), 338 BNS, Police Station- Rani
Ki Sarai, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial in the court
concerned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
due to some ulterior motive. The present FIR arises out of dispute relating
to money received under the pretext to providing job to the informant. It
is next submitted that applicant is having no concern with the allegations
levelled against him and he has not committed any offence as alleged by
prosecution. It is next submitted that as per prosecution, on the assurance
of providing job, the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- was taken by co-accused
Vidyasagar. However, Rs. 50,000/- has been transferred in the account of
the applicant but the prosecution failed to establish the purpose thereof or
the role allegedly played by the applicant in connection therewith. During
investigation, nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in paragraph no. 22 of the instant bail application and he is
languishing in jail since 23.5.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court,
there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record,
BAIL No. 30420 of 2026
2
evidence and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of
the trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Rahul Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the 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.
(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.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the
sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at
liberty to cancel the bail.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 8, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…