Allahabad High Court
RAJESH NISHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence, absence of other admissible proof, the co‑accused’s bail, and the applicant’s clean record and extended detention, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajesh Nishad, who was arrested in Crime No.187 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) and 238(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident, the case relied solely on circumstantial evidence and a single "last seen" testimony, and that his co-accused had already been released on bail. He also highlighted his clean criminal record and the fact that he had been in custody for over a year. The State opposed bail but did not refute the factual submissions. After reviewing the record, the court found the applicant entitled to bail, ordered his release on a personal bond with two sureties, and imposed standard conditions. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the case is based primarily on circumstantial evidence and the FIR was filed after a delay.
- Whether the lack of any evidence beyond the "last seen" testimony justifies granting bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238(b)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 103
- Section 238
- pre‑trial detention
- personal bond
- sureties
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30934 of 2026
Rajesh Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. However, alongwith the instant bail application free true copy of the
bail rejection order passed by the court concerned has not been filed but
considering the reason disclosed in this regard in the affidavit filed in
support of the instant bail application, the instant bail application is being
heard on merit.
2. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav,
learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2025,
under Sections 103(1), 238(b) BNS, Police Station Bidhnu, District
Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR alongwith co-accused Ramsaran Gupta but it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged after four
days.
5. He next submits, even except evidence of last seen there is no other
evidence against the applicant on record.
6. He further submits, co-accused Ramsaran Gupta has been released on
bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail order has been
BAIL No. 30934 of 2026
2
annexed at page-71 of the paper-book and case of applicant is at par with
him.
7. He next submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 19.08.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.
8. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith co-
accused Ramsaran Gupta but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
even FIR of the present case was lodged after four days.
11. Further, it reflects, except evidence of last seen there is no cogent and
admissible evidence against the applicant on record.
12. Further, even co-accused Ramsaran Gupta has been released on bail
and case of applicant is at par with him.
13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 19.08.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant - Rajesh Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
BAIL No. 30934 of 2026
3
(ii) The applicant 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 facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
17. 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.
18. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 15, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…