Allahabad High Court
KUSH PATELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case for bail existed and granted bail to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kush Patel, who was charged under several provisions of the B.N.S., the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The applicant argued that the co‑accused's statement implicating him lacked evidentiary value and that no test identification parade was conducted as required under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The court examined the material on record, the submissions of counsel, and noted the absence of a proper identification process. Finding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case for detention, the court held that bail was warranted. Accordingly, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of a test identification parade under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam defeats the prosecution's case for denial of bail.
- Whether a co‑accused's statement implicating the applicant can be treated as substantive evidence for bail considerations.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on a prima facie basis despite the charges under the B.N.S., U.P. Public Examination Act and IT Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — s. 7
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 319(2), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D)
- U.P. Public Examination Act — s. 11(6), 13(5), 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- identification parade
- co-accused statement
- evidence
- prima facie
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31724 of 2026
Kush Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavlesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.37 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.414 of 2026, under Sections 319(2), 318(4),
61(2) B.N.S., Section 8, 11(6), 13(5) U.P. Public Examination Act and Section 66(D)
I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the
fact that the name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the co-accused
person, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law and that no test identification
parade was conducted as per Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 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. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
5. Let the applicant- Farman, 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.
6. 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
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…