Allahabad High Court

POORAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pooran Singh, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 102 of 2026 under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 352 BNS for allegedly assaulting a deceased person with a sharp‑edged weapon. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed more than four hours after the incident, that the informant’s statement and the post‑mortem report were inconsistent, and that the daughter’s later statement implicating him was unreliable. The State opposed bail, relying on the daughter’s testimony that the applicant participated in the assault. The Court examined the material inconsistencies, the lack of a criminal record, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, concluding that the prosecution’s case was weak and that bail was appropriate. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 352 BNS.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies between the informant’s statement, post‑mortem report, and the daughter’s testimony justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 103(1)
Section 115(2)
Section 352 BNS
FIR delay
inconsistent evidence
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31908 of 2026

Pooran Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant as well
as Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2026, under Sections
103(1), 115(2), 352 BNS, Police Station Sasni, District Hathras, during the
pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant and the other co-accused persons are stated to have
caught hold of the deceased person, while Yashveer is stated to have
inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased by a sharp-edged weapon on
20.3.2026 at about 1.00 pm.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by more than four hours and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The statement of the informant indicates that the author of the injuries was
only Yashveer, who hit the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon and the
said sharp-edged weapon has also not been mentioned in the FIR. The post-
BAIL No. 31908 of 2026
2

mortem report is not in consonance with the allegations made in the FIR.
There are twelve injuries sustained by the deceased person and of those
twelve injuries, there are six incised wounds and six other injuries are
abrasions, contusions only. There is no explanation of the said injuries in the
FIR but subsequently, to make the said post-mortem report fall in line with
the prosecution story, the statement of the daughter of the deceased has been
recorded, who has categorically stated that applicant and Ravendra Singh
had assaulted the deceased person and caused multiple injuries to him as
well as the said witness. The said statement is inconsistent with the contents
of the FIR.

7. Either the informant is not an eye-witness or the eye-witness has been
created subsequently. The injuries sustained by the said eye-witness are
simple in nature, which may be manufactured. The primary accused
mentioned in the FIR has been exonerated by the police, thus, the
prosecution story goes topsy turvy, as such, applicant is entitled for bail.

8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 21.3.2026 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:

9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the daughter of
the deceased person has categorically nominated the applicant.

CONCLUSION:

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the material inconsistency in the statement of the eye-witness
to the FIR and also the post-mortem report, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Pooran Singh, 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
BAIL No. 31908 of 2026
3

as required.

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

13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
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…