Allahabad High Court
PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Pawan Kumar was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No.409 of 2026) involving alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act. He contended that the FIR was lodged two and a half years after the alleged petty transactions, that the complainants’ identities and statements were not on record, and that he had no prior criminal history. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of substantive evidence, and the applicant’s clean record. Without passing on the merits, the court found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending charges under multiple IPC sections and the IT Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of victim statements justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 3(5)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delay in FIR
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 66‑D
- Information Technology Act
- prima facie case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33239 of 2026
Pawan Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.4 out of 61)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.409 of 2026, under Sections
318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 3(5) BNS and Section 66-D of I.T. Act,
Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant has been implicated in the case regarding the transactions entered
two and a half years back, as such, the FIR is delayed. The said transactions
are petty in nature and the identity and statements of actual
complainants/victims of the three transactions have not been placed on
record. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 10.8.2026.
He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 33239 of 2026
2
consideration the delay in institution of FIR, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Pawan Kumar, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…