Allahabad High Court

PUSHPENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

Since the applicant was not named in the FIR and there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence, nor any risk of tampering or intimidation, he is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pushpendra in a criminal case (Crime No. 427 of 2026) involving alleged recovery of copper slabs. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, and that there was no independent or corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found that the lack of naming in the FIR, absence of corroborative evidence, and no indication of organized crime involvement removed any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions. The amendment application filed earlier was also allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, not named in the FIR, is entitled to bail.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in an organized crime syndicate is established.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 61(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 111(4), 316(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5)

Subjects

bail
first information report
delay
false implication
lack of corroborative evidence
organized crime
section 61 CrPC
section 316 IPC
section 317 IPC
section 111 IPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32639 of 2026

Pushpendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

In re: Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 1 of 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the
bail rejection order dated 10.08.2026.

2. The amendment application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant shall carry out necessary amendment
during the course of the day.

In re: Memo of Bail Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar
Pandey, learned learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 427 of 2026, under Sections 316(2),
317(2), 317(5), 111(4), 317(4), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Sikandrarau,
District- Hathras during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
21.6.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 23.6.2026.
The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution
case. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer, the applicant
was arrested along with five other accused and has been falsely implicated in
BAIL No. 32639 of 2026
2

the present case. False recovery of copper slabs has been shown from the
joint possession of the applicant and other accused. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a
member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such
syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 25.7.2026 having no criminal history.
In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. His name surfaced during the course of investigation.
There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there
is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further,
the applicant has presently remained confined for more than 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 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- Pushpendra, involved in the aforesaid case, be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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.

September 30, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…