Allahabad High Court

ARUNversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

The applicant, Arun, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 52 of 2026) alleging his involvement in the alleged snatching of jewellery from an informant's mother, with charges under Sections 309(4), 317(2) and 317(4) of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR named unknown persons, and that his name surfaced only through co‑accused statements without any independent evidence. The State opposed the bail, but the court examined the record, noting the applicant's claim of innocence, lack of corroborative witnesses, and the heavy pendency of cases in the court. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail during the trial, without passing any view on the merits of the allegations. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, intimidation of witnesses, and commission of similar offences. The court also directed verification of the sureties' identity and residence before acceptance.

Issues considered

Whether the accused is entitled to bail pending trial despite charges under IPC Sections 309 and 317.
Whether the lack of independent evidence and claim of false implication justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317(2), 317(4)

Subjects

bail
false implication
snatching of jewellery
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31866 of 2026

Arun
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Beerendra Singh Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent and perused the record of the case.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 52 of 2026, under Sections 309(4), 317(2), 317(4)
BNS, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of
the trial in the court concerned.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
due to some ulterior motive. The present case pertains to alleged
snatching of jewellery from the mother of the informant. The FIR has
been lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant surfaced
during the course of investigation through the statement of co-accused
persons. It is next submitted that applicant is having no concern with the
allegations levelled against him and he has not committed any offence as
alleged by prosecution. It is next submitted that a false recovery has been
shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness
of the alleged recovery. Similarly placed co-accused Mukul Pandey has
been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 2.7.2026 in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 21262 of 2026. Criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit
filed in support of the instant bail application and he is languishing in jail
since 01.05.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he
will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in
the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood
of any early conclusion of trial.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record,
evidence and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments
BAIL No. 31866 of 2026
2

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of
the trial.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Arun be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.

(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the
sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at
liberty to cancel the bail.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 9, 2026
KK Patel

Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…