Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RISHABHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The bail application is allowed.

Summary

The applicant, Rishabh, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 39 of 2026) alleging misuse of a stolen SIM card. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, which was filed four days after the alleged offence, and that the informant’s complaint was delayed by seven days, providing no direct evidence against him. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of cogent evidence, finding prima facie that the applicant had a case for bail. The court granted bail on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order emphasized that bail does not affect the trial on merits and may be cancelled for breach of conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial despite not being named in the FIR and the delay in filing the FIR.
  • Whether the delay in the FIR and lack of direct evidence justify granting bail.

Subjects

  • bail
  • delay in FIR
  • false implication
  • SIM card misuse
  • criminal procedure
  • presumption of innocence

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31753 of 2026

Rishabh
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Rakesh Kumar Rathore,                  Sanjeev
                                Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.19 out of 172 T.C.)

                              HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, 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.39 of 2026, under Section 103(1)
B.N.S., Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not
named in the FIR, which itself is delayed by about four days, and there is no
explanation for the said delay caused. The informant subsequently gave an
application before the police station, i.e., after a delay of about seven days,
alleging that he suspected that the applicant and other accused persons had
committed the said offence. There is no cogent or direct evidence against the
applicant. The applicant is stated to have misused the SIM card stolen from
the deceased person. The duration of the misuse of the said SIM card by the
applicant is from 08.02.2026 to 12.02.2026, which is about one month
before her death. As such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 24.03.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
                                                                                              BAIL No. 31753 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned
                                    counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

                                    6. 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 in the institution of the FIR and the fact that there is
                                    no cogent or direct evidence against the applicant, 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.

                                    7. Let the applicant- Rishabh, 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.

                                    8. 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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.