Allahabad High Court
NEELAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court held that the accused is entitled to bail as the delayed FIR and allegations do not preclude grant of bail, without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The accused Neelam applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 114 of 2026) involving alleged abduction and injury under Sections 126(2), 140(1), 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. The FIR, filed a day after the alleged incident, was claimed to be false and motivated by a land dispute, and the accused argued that the delay and her clean criminal record warranted bail. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the abduction allegation and the accused's criminal history. The Court examined the submissions, noted the delayed FIR and the fact that a charge sheet had been filed, and concluded that these factors did not bar bail. Without addressing the merits of the case, the Court allowed the bail application, directing release on personal bond and two sureties, following Supreme Court precedents. The accused was ordered to cooperate with the judicial process for a speedy disposal of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail under the specified sections of the BNS despite a delayed FIR and alleged criminal history.
- Whether the merits of the abduction allegation need to be examined before granting bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 115(2), 126(2), 140(1), 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delayed FIR
- abduction
- land dispute
- criminal history
- personal bond
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31393 of 2026
Neelam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Prakash Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Kumar Singh
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining criminal history, the
same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Akash Pandey, learned advocate, holding the brief, appears
for the accused applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Neelam to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2026, under
Sections 126(2), 140(1), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, P.S.- Barua Sagar,
District- Jhansi during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
accused applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 26.5.2026
lodged by the abductee Parsuram Raikawar with the allegation against
four named persons including the present applicant, who is a lady. It is the
contention of the FIR that on 25.5.2025 at about 02:00 pm the informant
has been abducted by the accused applicant and her brother Sonu on a
motorcycle. Later on, the motorcycle slipped and all the three suffered
injuries. It is further contended that it is also disclosed in the FIR that at
the time of slipping of motorcycle, the father of the informant was there.
It is further contended that despite the alleged recovery of the abductee,
the FIR is delayed and lodged in the intervening night of 25/26.5.2025.
The injuries are simple in nature. There is a land dispute between the
parties, which led to the lodging of the present FIR. It is further contended
that in a duration of two days, two other FIRs have been lodged, which
BAIL No. 31393 of 2026
2
became criminal history in the present case. In one case, he is on bail and
another case, he has been released on notice under Section 35(3)
BNSS. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 28.5.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the bail and submits that the accused applicant has abducted the informant
on the motorcycle but somehow, he managed to escape. There is criminal
history. As such, submits that the bail application should be rejected.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the allegation against the accused applicant, the delayed
FIR and the charge sheet has been submitted, the accused applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 14, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…