Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF UP
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The applicant Rahul was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 345 of 2025) involving the deaths of two individuals, Raja and Subham. The prosecution’s case is based solely on a vague allegation that Rahul might have been involved, with no statements from the deceased, no direct evidence, and a delayed FIR. Rahul’s counsel argued that he is innocent, not named in the FIR, and that the recovery of a cloth, grinder, and a scooty was falsely attributed to him. The State opposed bail, but the court found the allegations insufficient to deny bail, noting the lack of ocular evidence and the absence of the scooty in the FIR. Consequently, the court granted bail on condition of a personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during trial despite being charged under IPC sections 331(4), 305, 103(1), and 317(2).
- Whether the vague allegations and lack of direct evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of the scooty in the FIR affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 305, 317(2), 331(4)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- IPC
- delay in FIR
- lack of evidence
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31648 of 2026
Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anshul Sengar, Atul Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.8 out of 172 T.C.)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram
Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2025, under Sections
331(4), 305, 103(1), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Link Road, District
Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the brother of the informant, Raja, and his
friend, Subham, are stated to have been found in an injured state in the night
of 10/11.11.2025, and both are stated to have subsequently succumbed to
their injuries. No statement of either of the deceased persons was recorded.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant has nothing to do with the said offence and is not named in the
FIR. The FIR itself was lodged after a delay of about three days and there is
no explanation of the said delay caused. The only allegation against the
applicant is that the informant apprehended that the applicant might have
committed the said offence, as he had an altercation with the deceased Raja
about three months prior to the incident. The said allegation is vague. Even
otherwise, no direct overt act has been assigned to the applicant.
BAIL No. 31648 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that subsequently, a
false recovery of a cloth, along with a grinder and the scooty belonging to
the landlord of the house, has been foisted upon the applicant. There is no
mention in the FIR that the said scooty had been stolen. As such, the said
scooty has also been falsely foisted upon the applicant. Therefore, this is a
clear-cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and
is in jail since 16.11.2025. 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 but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
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 fact that there are only vague allegations against the
applicant, based merely on apprehension, that there is no ocular account of
the incident, coupled with the fact that there is no mention of the said scooty
in the FIR, 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- Rahul, 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
Checking your session…