Allahabad High Court
NIKHIL GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nikhil Gautam in a case involving offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352 and 103(1) of the IPC. The applicant was not named in the FIR; his name surfaced only in a later statement of an informant who was not an eye‑witness. The eye‑witness, Himanshu, identified another co‑accused as the person who caused the knife injuries, and the post‑mortem report corroborated this. The applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for almost three months. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. Weighing the lack of direct evidence against the applicant, the absence of a prior record, and the identification of a prime accused, the court granted bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR but later identified through an informant’s statement.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witness testimony against the accused justifies bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and length of pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
- Whether the identification of a co‑accused as the prime perpetrator affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 191(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- informant
- eye‑witness
- no prior conviction
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32301 of 2026
Nikhil Gautam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Rishabh
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.111 of 2026,
under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352 and 103(1) BNS, Police Station
Rajatalab, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant was
not named in the FIR but during investigation when second statement of
the informant was recorded then very casually he disclosed the name of
the applicant along with others. He next submits that admittedly
informant of the case was not the eye witness.
5. He further argued that during investigation Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of one Himanshu, in whose function incident
occurred and he was the eye witness and he, however, also disclosed the
name of the applicant but he assigned specific role of causing knife
injuries to the deceased to co-accused Himanshu S/o Late Raj Kumar.
6. He further argued that post mortem report also suggests that deceased
sustained three injuries, which were caused by sharp edged weapon.
7. He further argued that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.6.2026 i.e., for
BAIL No. 32301 of 2026
2
almost three months.
8. 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.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. Applicant was not named in the FIR but it reflects that when
Investigating Officer recorded the second statement of the informant then
very casually he along with other accused also disclosed the name of the
applicant.
11. Further, even informant does not appear to be eye witness.
12. Further, record also suggests that incident occurred in the function of
one Himanshu and he was the eye witness and when his statement was
recorded by Investigating Officer then he, however, also disclosed the
name of the applicant along with others but he assigned specific role of
causing knife injuries to the deceased to co-accused Himnashu.
13. Further, post mortem report also suggests that deceased sustained
injuries through sharp edged weapon, therefore, co-accused Himanshu S/o
Late Raj Kumar prima facie appears to be prime accused.
14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail since 19.6.2026, i.e., for almost three
months.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant-Nikhil Gautam 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,
BAIL No. 32301 of 2026
3
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.
18. 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
the bail of the applicant.
19. 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…