Allahabad High Court

DIVYANSH PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted as a prima facie case exists in favour of the applicant.

Summary

Divyansh Pandey applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.180 of 2026) involving offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238, 309(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's name appeared in a co‑accused’s confessional statement, but the court held that such a statement has no evidentiary value. CCTV footage also failed to place the applicant at the scene. After considering the submissions and the material on record, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions. The bail order does not affect the trial on merits. The court warned that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

Whether the presence of the applicant's name in a co‑accused's confessional statement, which lacks evidentiary value, and the absence of CCTV evidence justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238, 309(4), 317(2), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
confessional statement
evidentiary value
CCTV footage
Indian Penal Code
prima facie case
sureties
criminal procedure

Judgment

                 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

              CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31816 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :   Gulhuma, Sr. Advocate, Vimal Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.25 out of 172 T.C.)

                              HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shahzad Alam,
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Gulhuma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit
Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2),
238, 309(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur, 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 confessional statement of the
co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and that even the CCTV
footage does not indicate the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence, 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- Divyansh Pandey, 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…