Allahabad High Court

AWADHESHversusSTATE OF UP

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, given the belated FIR, vague allegations, lack of prior record and parity with a similarly situated co‑accused, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Awadhesh, who was charged under IPC sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 105 in a murder case. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, pointing to a seven‑day delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the FIR and arguing that the allegations were vague. The court noted that a co‑accused, Meena Devi, had been granted bail in a similar case and that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had already been in custody for seven months. The State could not demonstrate any real risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged with serious offences under the IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the vagueness of the allegations justify granting bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115, 191, 351, 352

Subjects

bail
FIR delay
vague allegations
IPC sections 191,115,352,351,105
parity with co‑accused
no criminal antecedent
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31599 of 2026

Awadhesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankita Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 32 of 2026, under
Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 B.N.S., Police Station-
Tarya Sujan, District- Kushinagar during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to
have occurred on 5.2.2026, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 12.2.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the
first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the
postmortem the deceased sustained six injuries. Four injuries
were found on the head region, whereas the other injuries were on
other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of
death is coma due to antemortem head injuries. As per the
allegations contained in the first information report, on the
instigation of co-accused Baikhar, the applicant along with four
accused assaulted the brother-in-law of the informant (since
deceased). Placing reliance upon the statement of the independent
witnesses namely Chattu Sah, it is contended that the brother-in-
BAIL No. 31599 of 2026
2

law of the informant, while riding a motorcycle, collided with the
applicant and two others. Thereafter, the applicant and other
persons assaulted him. He sustained injuries and died while being
taken to the hospital. It is contended that a vague and general
allegation has been levelled against the applicant. The applicant
had neither the requisite knowledge nor had any intention to
commit the offence. Identically placed co-accused Meena Devi
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.6.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21146 of 2026
(Meena Devi vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The
applicant is in jail since 18.2.2026 having no criminal history. In
case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 first information
report has been lodged belatedly. A vague and general allegation
has been levelled against the applicant. Identically placed co-
accused Meena Devi has been granted bail by this Court. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has
presently remained confined for almost seven months 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 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, Awadhesh involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
BAIL No. 31599 of 2026
3

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the
trial court.

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 16, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…