Allahabad High Court

PAPPUversusSTATE OF UP

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence and given the belated FIR, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pappu, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 175 of 2026). The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, rendering the prosecution case weak, and that the informant’s statement implicating him was unreliable. The court noted that the allegations against the applicant were vague, limited to "slapping," which could not have caused the fatal injuries, and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime. It also observed that the applicant had already been in custody for nearly two months with no prospect of a speedy trial and that the State had not shown any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether the allegations of slapping are sufficient to deny bail.

Subjects

bail
FIR delay
insufficient evidence
criminal procedure
Section 105
Section 180
false implication
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32664 of 2026

Pappu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra, Rajveer
Chaurasiya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rafeek Ahmad Khan

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi,
learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Madhulata Singh, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Rafeek Ahmad Khan, counsel for the
informant. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2026,
under Section 105, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Kabrai, District-
Mahoba during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to
have occurred on 27.7.2026, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 30.7.2026. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the
allegations contained in the first information report, the co-
accused Doodhpal armed with an iron rod (Sabbal) and co-
accused Neetu armed with a Lathi, are alleged to have assaulted
the brother of the informant, who sustained injuries. He was taken
to the District Hospital, Mahoba, where he was given primary aid
and referred to the Medical College, Jhansi, he subsequently,
BAIL No. 32664 of 2026
2

succumbed to his injuries. As per the postmortem report, a single
injury was found i.e. abrasion injury at left leg with dry scab. In
the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is hemorrhage and shock
due to antemortem intestinal injury. Subsequently, the informant
in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that
on hearing noise, he came out of his house and saw that
Doodhpal was assaulting his brother with Sabbal, Neetu with a
lathi, and Awadh Narayan and the applicant were slapping his
brother. It is contended that the said statement is an after thought
and unreliable. Vague and general allegations have been levelled
against the applicant. The alleged injury could not have been
caused by mere slapping. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal
history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the
supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 1.8.2026. In
case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant
have 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 first information
report has been lodged belatedly. Vague and general allegations
have been levelled against the applicant. The role of slapping has
been assigned the applicant. The alleged injury could not have
been caused by mere slapping. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Further the applicant has presently 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 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, Pappu involved in the aforesaid case be
BAIL No. 32664 of 2026
3

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
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…