Allahabad High Court
JASVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that, given the delayed FIR, lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime, and no indication of potential witness tampering, bail must be granted despite the accused’s criminal history.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jasveer Singh in a case under IPC sections 352, 351(3), 318(4), 319(2) and CrPC sections 61(2)(a) and 111(4). The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than five months, that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offences, and that he was not a beneficiary or signatory to any illicit agreement. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the FIR delay and lack of evidence, coupled with the fact that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, outweighed any adverse inference from the applicant’s past record, and that no material was shown that he would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions, noting the prolonged pre‑trial confinement and the unlikely early conclusion of trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and absence of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents warrant denial of bail.
- Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail influences the decision.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and prospects of a speedy trial affect bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 111(4), 61(2)(a)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- FIR delay
- Indian Penal Code
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- witness tampering
- pre‑trial detention
- organized crime
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31496 of 2026
Jasveer Singh
.....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.151 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 five 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. Further, the co-accused Gulhasan has been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 3.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.28643 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant
has been explained in Paragraph- 11 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.
BAIL No. 31496 of 2026
2
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.
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. The co-accused Gulhasan has been granted bail
by this Court.
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, 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
BAIL No. 31496 of 2026
3
court concerned subject to conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(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 first Sunday
of every month between 11.00 am and 01.00 pm.
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
Checking your session…