Allahabad High Court

NEERAJ BINDversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The applicant, Neeraj Bind, was named in an FIR alleging his participation in the murder of a deceased person, allegedly motivated by an affair between the deceased and the co-accused Priyanka, who is the applicant's sister. The prosecution's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and verbal allegations, with no direct proof linking the applicant to the crime. The applicant's counsel highlighted that two co-accused, Priyanka and Shivshankar, had already been released on bail, and that the applicant has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for over ten months. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The court, after reviewing the record, concluded that the lack of cogent evidence and the applicant's circumstances warranted bail, without expressing any view on the merits of the trial. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution's case rests only on circumstantial evidence and suspicion.
Whether the grant of bail to co-accused in the same FIR influences the applicant's entitlement to bail.
Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
murder
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33089 of 2026

Neeraj Bind
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sher Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
3(5) BNS, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh, during pendency of
the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence. He further submits,
according to the prosecution deceased was having affair with co-accused
Priyanka and applicant is brother of co-accused Priyanka and applicant
alongiwth her and another co-accused committed murder of the deceased
but except bald and verbal allegation and suspicion there is no cogent
evidence which can connect the applicant with the instant crime.

4. He further submits, even co-accused Priyanka and Shivshankar @
Shankar who were also named in the FIR have been released on bail by
this Court and their bail orders have been annexed alongwith the instant
bail application and on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

5. He further argued, applicant was not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.11.2025 i.e. for last
more than ten months.

6. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could
BAIL No. 33089 of 2026
2

not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.

7. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith four others but it is a
case of circumstantial evidence. Record further suggests, however
according to the prosecution deceased was having affair with co-accused
Priyanka and applicant is brother of co-accused Priyanka and therefore
applicant alongiwth her and other co-accused committed murder of the
deceased but it reflects, except bald and verbal allegation and suspicion
prima facie there is no other cogent evidence which can connect the
applicant with the instant crime.

9. Further, even co-accused Priyanka and Shivshankar @ Shankar who
were also named in the FIR have been released on bail by this Court and
on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

10. Further, applicant was not having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail for last more than ten months.

11. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released
on bail.

12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant - Neeraj Bind be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
BAIL No. 33089 of 2026
3

or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.

14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.

15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 24, 2026
Shahroz

Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…