Allahabad High Court

BHUREversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant Bhure is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhure in Criminal Case No. 277 of 2026, which alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. The applicant argued that the allegations were vague, that he was falsely implicated, and that there was no specific charge of extortion against him. The court noted the prior FIR filed by a co‑accused indicating enmity, the recovery of a Rs.2 lakh cheque, and the fact that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody for over two months. It also observed that a co‑accused, Shilpi @ Shivani, had already been granted bail, and that there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would tamper with evidence, delay the trial, or intimidate witnesses. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant Bhure is entitled to bail despite the vague and general allegations against him
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence, delaying the trial, or intimidating witnesses

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(3), 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 248, 308(5), 308(6), 351(3), 352, 61(2), 74, 76
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

bail
false implication
vague allegations
extortion
organized crime
witness intimidation
Indian Penal Code
SC/ST Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32945 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari, Parijat Kumar
Tiwari, Venu Gopal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lalit Kumar Tripathi, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for
the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.277 of 2026, under Sections 61(2),
111(3), 248, 308(5), 308(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Bhamora,
District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Vague and general allegations have been
levelled against the applicant. There is no specific allegation of extortion
against the applicant. Earlier, the co-accused Mamta had lodged an F.I.R.
against the informant and four others, registered as Case Crime No.0198 of
2026, under Sections 74, 76, 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, at Police Station Bhamora, District
Bareilly, indicating prior enmity between the parties. Further, the cheque of
Rs.2 lakhs was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of
co-accused Surkesh. The applicant is neither a member of any organized
crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. At this stage there
is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further,
the co-accused Shilpi @ Shivani has been enlarged on bail by this Court
vide order dated 25.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.30107 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
20.07.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he
BAIL No. 32945 of 2026
2

will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA 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 vague and general allegations have been levelled
against the applicant. There is no specific allegation of extortion against the
applicant. Earlier, the co-accused Mamta had lodged a first information
report against the informant and four others, indicating prior enmity between
the parties. The cheque of Rs.2 lakhs was allegedly recovered pursuant to the
disclosure statement of co-accused Surkesh. Further, the co-accused Shilpi
@ Shivani has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant
has no criminal history and has 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 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 Bhure, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail
on her 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.

September 24, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…