Allahabad High Court

JAIHINDversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore allowed the bail application.

Summary

The applicant, identified as the son of the deceased, was charged with assaulting his father with an iron rod on 17 May 2026, resulting in death. The FIR was lodged on 18 May 2026, about a day after the inquest and post‑mortem examinations, during which the informant acted as a panch witness. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, citing the delayed FIR and lack of any criminal history, and offered to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail, arguing that the familial relationship negated any motive for false implication. The court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the informant’s prior participation in the inquest, and the applicant’s claim of innocence, concluding that a prima facie case for bail existed. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of about one day in filing the FIR warrants denial of bail.
Whether the informant’s role as a panch witness in the inquest affects the credibility of the FIR and the applicant’s claim of false implication.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and the applicant’s familial relationship to the deceased preclude bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
FIR delay
false implication
inquest
murder
Section 103
prima facie case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31615 of 2026

Jaihind
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Pandey, Satya Prakash Rathor
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.3 out of 172 T.C.)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.46 of 2026, under Sections 103(1)
BNS, Police Station Khanna, District Mahoba, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who is the son of the deceased, is
stated to have assaulted his father with an iron rod on 17.05.2026 at about
11:30 p.m. while in an inebriated state. The informant, who happens to be
the neighbour of the deceased, rushed to save him but could not do so. He
took the deceased to the CHC, wherefrom he was referred to the District
Hospital, Mahoba, where he succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, the FIR
was instituted on 18.5.2026 at 11:02 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR itself was lodged after a delay of about one day, for which no
explanation has been furnished. The applicant has been falsely implicated in
the case by the informant out of vengeance. The inquest proceedings and
post-mortem examination of the deceased had been conducted well before
the institution of the FIR. The informant was arrayed as a panch witness in
the inquest proceedings, which commenced on 18.05.2026 at 02:00 p.m. and
BAIL No. 31615 of 2026
2

concluded at about 3:00 p.m. Subsequently, the post-mortem examination
was also completed the same evening at 5:15 p.m., much before the
institution of the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR has been
lodged belatedly as an afterthought and was instituted after the cremation of
the deceased. It is true that the post-mortem report reveals five injuries on
the body of the deceased and the cause of death is attributable to the said
injuries; however, the applicant is not the author of any of those injuries and
was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.5.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the
ground that the applicant is the son of the deceased and there is no reason for
the informant to falsely implicate him.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay of about one day in the institution of the FIR,
coupled with the fact that the informant was a panch witness in the inquest
proceedings and he did not care to lodge the FIR at that point of time,
whereas the FIR was instituted after a delay of about ten hours from the
conclusion of the inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Jaihind, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.

10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…