Allahabad High Court
DABLU KUMAR SUNARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
Since the applicant was not named in the FIR, has no criminal antecedents, and there is no evidence of risk of tampering or intimidation, the court held that he is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dablu Kumar Sunar in a criminal case (Crime No.230 of 2026) under Sections 317(2), 317(4) and 111(2) of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was arrested based on an informer's tip, and that the recovered ornaments and money did not link him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim of lack of independent witness or show any risk of tampering, intimidation or delay. The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody for over a month and there was no reasonable apprehension of misuse of liberty. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery
- Whether the State has demonstrated a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted
- Whether the accused's lack of criminal antecedents and length of pre‑trial detention justify bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 111(2), 317(2), 317(4)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- FIR
- pre‑trial detention
- no independent witness
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31558 of 2026
Dablu Kumar Sunar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.230 of 2026, under Sections 317(2),
317(4), 111(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Tajganj, District - Agra, during the
pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. On the basis of information furnished by an
informer, the applicant was arrested along with four others and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of ornaments of yellow
metal, a mobile phone and the Indian currency of Rs.47000/- has been
shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The recovered articles and the Indian currency do not link the
applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is neither a member of any
organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The
applicant is in jail since 19.7.2026 having no criminal history and in case he
is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of
BAIL No. 31558 of 2026
2
investigation. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained
confined for more than one and half month and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Dablu Kumar Sunar, involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. 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…