Allahabad High Court
AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the FIR was lodged belatedly, there is no evidence of knowledge or intent, and no risk of tampering or intimidation is shown.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Kumar, who was arrested in connection with an accidental drowning that resulted in the death of an informant's wife. The applicant claimed false implication, citing a six‑day delay between the incident (23‑06‑2026) and the filing of the FIR (29‑06‑2026), and asserted no prior enmity or intent to cause death. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the applicant’s contentions or demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The Court observed that the belated FIR and lack of credible evidence of knowledge or intention, coupled with the applicant’s clean record and two‑month pre‑trial custody, warranted bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of Amit Kumar on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case for denying bail.
- Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in an accidental death justifies denial of bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- accidental death
- false implication
- no prior enmity
- clean criminal record
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32408 of 2026
Amit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Singh Dahiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA
for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2026, under Section 105
B.N.S., Police Station- Anoopshahar, District- Bulandshahr, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
23.06.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
29.06.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. As per the statement of the eyewitness,
namely, Shishpal (the diver), the applicant and the wife of the informant
entered the deep waters and started drowning. The applicant was
somehow rescued, whereas the wife of the informant could not be saved
and subsequently died. It is contended that there was no prior enmity
between the parties. The incident is purely accidental in nature.The
applicant neither had the requisite knowledge nor any intention for
committing the offence. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from
that of other co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 13.07.2026 having
no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could
not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 32408 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. No prior enmity existed between the parties. At this stage, there
is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant had the requisite
knowledge or intention to cause the death. Moreover, the applicant has no
criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost two months
and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or
delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Amit Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 11, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…