Allahabad High Court
JITENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the absence of the accused’s name in the FIR and the lack of essential ingredients for an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. negate any risk of tampering or intimidation, warranting the grant of bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jitendra Singh Yadav in a case registered as Crime No. 91 of 2026 under Sections 316(2), 3(5), 61(2) and 108/56 of the B.N.S. Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the alleged offence under Section 108 B.N.S. – which requires a death by suicide – could not be established as the victim is alive and there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail but failed to demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The court found that the essential ingredients of the offence were absent, the applicant had been in custody for over five months, and no reasonable apprehension of misuse of liberty existed. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR.
- Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 of the B.N.S. Act are established.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 108, 316(2), 3(5), 56, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- FIR
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32795 of 2026
Jitendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Prakash Singh, Mayank
Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 91 of 2026, under Sections
316(2), 3(5), 61(2), 108/56 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur,
District- Lalitpur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. On the basis of information
furnished by an informer, the name of the applicant surfaced. The
applicant neither demanded, threatened nor received any money from the
informant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of any illicit transaction.
Further, the alleged victim is alive. In absence of any death by suicide, the
basic and foundational requirement for an offence under Section 108 BNS
is conspicuously absent. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence
to connect the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in para No. 18. The applicant is in jail since
10.4.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 32795 of 2026
2
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. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course
of investigation. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 108 BNS are not made out. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant
has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of
charge sheet 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 Jitendra Singh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on 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;
(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 15, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…