Allahabad High Court

KAMALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

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

Summary

The applicant Kamal sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.151 of 2026) involving sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to abduction and related offences. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on statements of two alleged eye‑witnesses recorded more than two months after the incident, which the defence argued were chance witnesses and insufficient for a prima facie case. The applicant also had a history of seven prior cases, but they were old and of minor nature. The court noted that a co‑accused in the same case had already been released on bail and that the applicant had been in custody for four months. Considering the weak evidential basis, the applicant’s comparable position to the co‑accused, and the minimal relevance of his past cases, the judge ordered the bail application allowed subject to personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence on record, primarily delayed statements of alleged eye‑witnesses, establishes a prima facie case justifying denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history warrants refusal of bail.
Whether the release of a co‑accused on bail influences the applicant’s entitlement to bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 140(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
eye‑witness
chance witness
prior criminal history
Indian Penal Code
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33186 of 2026

Kamal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, 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.151 of 2026, under
Sections 103(1), 238, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 140(1) BNS,
Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, during
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of
the present case was lodged on 07.04.2026 against co-accused
Gaurav Sharma and Kamal Sharma at Police Station Sahpau,
District Hathras but subsequently when it was found that
actually the matter relates to Police Station Hathras Kotwali
then FIR was transferred to Police Station Kotwali.

4. He next submits, during investigation when first statement of
informant was recorded on 08.04.2026 then she reiterated the
versions of her initial tehrir dated 07.04.2026 and did not
disclose the name of applicant and thereafter when she moved
second application on 10.04.2026 then in this application also
she did not disclose name of applicant but on 12.04.2026 she
moved third application and in this application very casually
BAIL No. 33186 of 2026
2

she disclosed name of the applicant by stating that applicant
also involved in commission of the present crime alongwith
others. He next submits, admittedly informant was not the eye-
witness of the case.

5. He further argued, however during investigation
investigating officer recorded statements of two eye-witnesses
Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj Sharma which have been
annexed at pages-70 and 72 of the paper-book and however
according to them they witnessed that applicant and other
accused who were total 16 in number abducted the deceased
but their statements were recorded after more than two months
and even they appear to be chance witnesses and merely on the
basis of such statements prima facie at this stage it cannot be
said that applicant also involved in commission of the present
crime. He next submit, there is absolutely no cogent evidence
against the applicant.

6. He next submits, even with the a very detailed order co-
accused Krishna @ Parth has been released on bail by this
Court vide order dated 30.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.26353 of 2026 and case of applicant is at
par with him.

7. He further submits, however apart from the present case
applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but all
these cases were old one and majority of the cases were of
minor nature.

8. He further argued, in the present matter applicant is in jail
since 18.05.2026 i.e. for last four months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the
case.
BAIL No. 33186 of 2026
3

11. From the record it reflects, entire prosecution case is based
upon the statements of Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj Sharma
who were allegedly eye-witnesses but they prima facie appear
to be chance witnesses and even their statements were recorded
after more than two months.

12. Further, even co-accused Krishna @ Parth has been
released on bail by this Court and on facts case of applicant is
at par with him.

13. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of seven other cases but his criminal
history has been duly explained and it reflects, all the cases
were old one and majority of the cases were of minor nature. In
view of this Court, if otherwise case of bail is made out then
merely on the basis of criminal history instant bail application
should not be withheld.

14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
18.05.2026 i.e. for last four months.

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

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

17. Let the applicant - Kamal 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
BAIL No. 33186 of 2026
4

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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

September 17, 2026
Shahroz

(Sameer Jain,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…