Allahabad High Court

JASVEER SINGH @ GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence and given the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the applicant is entitled to bail despite his criminal history.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jasveer Singh @ Gupta, who was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code for alleged offences. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of over three and a half months and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime, asserting he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court noted the delayed FIR and lack of evidence, and held that criminal history alone does not justify denial of bail absent a showing of risk to the trial process. It also observed that prolonged pre‑trial detention of more than six months without a prospect of speedy trial warranted relief. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case and justifies bail.
Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents are sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Whether the absence of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence warrants bail.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention without a speedy trial warrants the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(4), 318(4), 319(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2)(a)

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
criminal antecedents
Indian Penal Code
pre‑trial detention
evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31416 of 2026

Jasveer Singh @ Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashma Dwivedi, Ravi Prakash Tripathi,
Santosh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S. Pandey, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.171 of 2026, under Sections 352, 351(3),
318(4), 319(2), 61(2)(a), 111(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sardhana, District
Meerut, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been
lodged belatedly after a delay of more than three and half months. Inordinate
delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case.
No amount relating to the alleged transaction has been received by the
applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transactions. The
applicant is also not a signatory of the agreement executed between co-
accused Jagmohan and the informant. The applicant has no role in the
alleged incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a
member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such
syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-
10 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 01.03.2026 and if he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.
BAIL No. 31416 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged with
inordinate delay. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence.

6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the
case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely
influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in
past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if
the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard
being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and
there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Jasveer Singh @ Gupta, involved in the aforesaid
case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy
sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
BAIL No. 31416 of 2026
3

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) shall mark his presence at the concerned police station on fourth
Sunday of every month between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

September 8, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…