Allahabad High Court
DHANPALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as he was not named in the FIR, has no prior criminal record, and the post‑mortem report casts doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Summary
The applicant Dhanpal filed a bail application in Crime No. 149 of 2026, claiming he was not named in the FIR and was implicated on false allegations. His counsel pointed out that the post‑mortem report showed no external injuries and the cause of death could not be ascertained, creating doubt about the prosecution’s story. It was further highlighted that co‑accused Rajesh and Vijay Pal had already been released on bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody only since 16 August 2026. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute these factual submissions. The court, after considering the lack of naming in the FIR, the doubtful post‑mortem findings, the bail granted to co‑accused, and the applicant’s clean record, held that he was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused who was not named in the FIR but was implicated on alleged false allegations
- Whether the post‑mortem report indicating no external injuries creates sufficient doubt to justify bail
- Whether the bail granted to co‑accused influences the applicant's entitlement to bail
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and short period of custody warrant bail
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- FIR
- post‑mortem report
- co‑accused
- no prior criminal record
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32283 of 2026
Dhanpal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No..149 of 2026,
under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal
during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant was
not named in the FIR but during investigation on the basis of false
allegation without any cogent evidence he has been made accused in the
present matter.
4. He further submits that even from the post mortem report it reflects that
deceased did not sustain any injury and his cause of death could not be
ascertained and, therefore, even prosecution story narrated in the FIR
appears to be doubtful.
5. He further argued that co-accused Rajesh and Vijay Pal were named in
the FIR and co-accused Rajesh has been released on bail by this Court
vide order dated 19.9.2026 and his bail order has been annexed at page
89 of the paper book and co-accused Vijay Pal has been released on
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2026 and his order
has been annexed at page 87 of the paper book and case of applicant is on
better footing than them.
6. He further argued that applicant is not having any previous criminal
BAIL No. 32283 of 2026
2
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 16.8.2026.
7. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
9. However, in the present matter applicant is in jail only since 16.8.2026
but he was not named in the FIR and one of the named co-accused has
been released on bail
10. Further, even post mortem report suggests that deceased did not
sustain any external injury and prima facie post mortem report creates
doubt on the prosecution story narrated in the FIR.
11. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Dhanpal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
BAIL No. 32283 of 2026
3
the bail of the applicant.
16. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 18, 2026
SKM
Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…