Allahabad High Court
PRAVESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The bail application was rejected.
Summary
The accused Pravesh applied for bail in a criminal case under sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This was his second bail application after a prior denial. He argued that the incident never occurred and that five prosecution witnesses had not supported the case, further contending that their statements contained date discrepancies, rendering them redundant. The State opposed the bail, pointing out the inconsistencies and the lack of merit in the applicant’s arguments. The Court examined the witness statements, noted the contradictions in recording dates, and concluded that the applicant’s contentions were self‑contradictory and irrelevant. Consequently, the bail application was rejected without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail application should be granted despite alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements.
- Whether the date discrepancies in witness statements affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case sufficient to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- witness testimony
- date discrepancy
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- sections 109
- section 115
- section 351
- section 352
- cross‑version
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32007 of 2026
Pravesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-
applicant/ Pravesh for seeking bail, in Case Crime No.228 of 2025, under
Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail
application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated
16.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12692 of 2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the one hand, submits that no
such incident ever took place, while, on the other hand, submits that, there
is a cross-version of the incident from both sides. The new grounds on
which the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this
application is that during trial, five prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Kalu,
PW-2 Kuldeep, PW-3 Sanju, PW-4 Bablu and PW-5 Rishipal, who have
not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this
matter, since 14.12.2025, without having any criminal antecedents and
there is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail,
may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 32007 of 2026
2
6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for
bail of the applicant.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, it is evident that
learned counsel for the applicant submits that, no such incident ever took
place. On the other hand, it is submitted that there is a cross-version of the
incident from both sides. If the submission of learned counsel for the
applicant that, no such incident took place is taken into consideration,
then the ground taken by the applicant-accused regarding the existence of
a cross-case is self-contradictory and, therefore, has no relevance.
Moreover, the plea of the applicant is that five witnesses have been
examined and they do not support the prosecution case. However, in the
statement of PW-2 namely Kuldeep, it has been stated that the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witness Kuldeep on
13.12.2025, whereas statement was recorded on 13.01.2026. Similarly,
statement of PW-3 namely Sanju stated the statement was allegedly
recorded on 13.12.2025, but as per case diary, statement was recorded on
13.01.2026. Similarly, statement of PW-5 namely Rishipal, was allegedly
recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13.12.2025, whereas, as per case
diary, said statement was recorded on 18.01.2026 and, therefore,
statements recorded by these witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5
become redundant due to difference in the dates. Hence, the second bail
application moved on behalf of the applicant, Pravesh, is hereby
rejected.
8. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed on the merit of the
case.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 10, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…