Allahabad High Court

SHIVAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that, on the facts, the applicant made out a case for bail and the bail application was allowed.

Summary

Shivam Yadav applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 166 of 2026) under IPC sections 103(1) and 238 BNS. He argued that the FIR was lodged fifty days after the alleged offence, there was no identification parade under Section 7 of the Evidence Act, and eyewitness statements were recorded after a fifteen‑day delay, rendering the evidence weak. The State contended that his name appears in the FIR and that CCTV footage was deleted by the accused. The court noted the procedural delays, lack of conclusive identification, and the applicant’s clean record, and concluded that he had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and recording eyewitness statements warrants granting bail.
Whether the absence of an identification parade under Section 7 of the Evidence Act precludes continued detention.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, justifying denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 238

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
identification parade
eyewitness testimony
CCTV footage
Section 173(4) CrPC
Section 7 Evidence Act
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31893 of 2026

Shivam Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Harish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek
Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026, under Sections
103(1), 238 BNS, Police Station Sector 63 Noida, District Gautam Buddha
Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by about fifty days and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused. The application u/s 173(4) was already
filed on 31.3.2026.

5. The applicant is not named in the FIR. Although it is mentioned that he is
the person, who was driving the Discovery Car No. UP 16 BY 4637.

6. There is no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of the
Indian Evidence Act to establish the presence of applicant at the place of
occurrence.

7. The name of applicant was surfaced for the first time in the statement of
witness, Satyawan Yadav, on 25.4.2025.

8. The statement of the eye-witness, Sandeep Yadav, was recorded after a
BAIL No. 31893 of 2026
2

delay of fifteen days from the date of institution of FIR i.e. on 10.5.2026,
whereby the applicant has been assigned the role of having committed the
said offence along with the co-accused persons.

9. Even the CCTV footage is not conclusive, as it does not indicate the
active participation of the applicant

10. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 31.5.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

11. The name of applicant indirectly finds mention itself in the FIR.

12. The CCTV footage from the place of occurrence, which would have
been conclusive from the neighbourhood by the police, has been deliberately
got deleted by the applicant and the co-accused persons.

CONCLUSION:

13. 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 FIR is delayed by fifty days and that the statement
of the eye-witness has been taken belatedly after about fifteen days from the
date of institution of 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.

14. Let the applicant- Shivam Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned
case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
BAIL No. 31893 of 2026
3

shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…