Allahabad High Court
TEJENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The bail application was rejected.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Tejendra, accused under sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered at Jansath police station. The applicant contended that the alleged incident never occurred and that five prosecution witnesses failed to support the prosecution, also pointing to inconsistencies in the dates of their statements. The State opposed bail, arguing that the allegations were bona fide. The Court observed that the applicant’s claim of no incident contradicted his assertion of a cross‑version, rendering it irrelevant, and noted discrepancies in the recording dates of witnesses’ statements, which undermined their reliability. Consequently, the Court rejected the second bail application without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail despite claims that the alleged incident did not occur and that prosecution witnesses are unreliable.
- Whether the cross‑version of the incident raised by the accused is a relevant ground for granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- witness testimony
- procedural irregularities
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- cross‑version
- credibility
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31529 of 2026
Tejendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-
applicant/ Tejendra for seeking bail, in Case Crime No.228 of 2025, under
Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated
30.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7349 of 2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the one hand, submits that no
such incident ever took place, while, on the other hand, submits that, there
is a cross-version of the incident from both sides. The new grounds on
which the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this
application is that during trial, five prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Kalu,
PW-2 Kuldeep, PW-3 Sanju, PW-4 Bablu and PW-5 Rishipal, who have
not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this
matter, since 15.12.2025, without having any criminal antecedents and
there is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail,
may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 31529 of 2026
2
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for
bail of the applicant.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, it is evident that
learned counsel for the applicant submits that, no such incident ever took
place. On the other hand, it is submitted that there is a cross-version of the
incident from both sides. If the submission of learned counsel for the
applicant that, no such incident took place is taken into consideration,
then the ground taken by the applicant-accused regarding the existence of
a cross-case is self-contradictory and, therefore, has no relevance.
Moreover, the plea of the applicant is that five witnesses have been
examined and they do not support the prosecution case. However, in the
statement of PW-2 namely Kuldeep, it has been stated that the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witness Kuldeep on
13.12.2025, whereas statement was recorded on 13.01.2026. Similarly,
statement of PW-3 namely Sanju stated the statement was allegedly
recorded on 13.12.2025, but as per case diary, statement was recorded on
13.01.2026. Similarly, statement of PW-5 namely Rishipal, was allegedly
recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13.12.2025, whereas, as per case
diary, said statement was recorded on 18.01.2026 and, therefore,
statements recorded by these witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5
become redundant due to difference in the dates. Hence, the second bail
application moved on behalf of the applicant, Tejendra, is hereby
rejected.
8. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed on the merit of the
case.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 9, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…