Allahabad High Court
BIJENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the circumstances are analogous to a co-accused already released and there is no prior criminal record.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bijendra in a criminal case (Crime No.152 of 2026) involving sections of the CrPC, IPC and the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The FIR, originally lodged against five other accused, was later amended to include Bijendra after a dead body was discovered, converting the case under Section 103(1) BNS. The applicant argued that he was not named in the original FIR, has no prior criminal record, has been in custody for over three months, and that a co-accused, Ajab Singh, was granted bail on similar facts. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. The Court noted the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the applicant’s situation mirrors that of the co-accused who was released, and there is no reason to diverge, thus granting bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being added as an accused after the FIR was lodged.
- Whether the lack of prior criminal history and similarity to a co-accused released on bail justify granting bail.
- Whether the nature of circumstantial evidence affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 140(1), 238, 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 140(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- circumstantial evidence
- co-accused
- prior criminal record
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33129 of 2026
Bijendra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Diwan Saifullah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 238,
61(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, during pendency
of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was
lodged on 30.05.2026 against five accused (non-applicant) for offences
punishable under Sections 109(1), 140(3), 3(5) BNS and according to the
FIR named accused persons after causing firearm injury abducted the brother
of the informant.
4. He next submits, subsequently when on 14.06.2026 it was found that dead
body of the deceased was lying in Mathura then thereafter case was
converted under Section 103(1) BNS.
5. He further submitted that with a detailed order co-accused Ajab Singh has
been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at
page 109 of the paper book and he was also not named in the FIR and case
of applicant is at par with him.
6. He further argued, applicant is not having any previous criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.06.2026.
7. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could
BAIL No. 33129 of 2026
2
not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. It appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not
named in the FIR.
10. It reflects, during investigation he has been made accused alongwith co-
accused Ajab Singh and co-accused Ajab Singh has been released on bail by
this Court with a very detailed and reasoned order and case of applicant is at
par with him. There is no occasion for this Court to take contrary view in the
instant bail application.
11. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 01.06.2026 i.e. for last more than three and
half months.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant - Bijendra, 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 or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
15. 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.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
BAIL No. 33129 of 2026
3
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.
September 17, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…