Allahabad High Court
SINKU @ MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sinku @ Mukesh, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 168 of 2026) based largely on a second statement by an informant and a confessional statement recorded by the investigating officer, with no other substantive evidence. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the case relied on circumstantial evidence, he was not named in the FIR, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since May 7, 2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant's counsel. The court examined the nature of the evidence, noting that it consisted mainly of suspicion and the informant's statement, and considered the applicant's clean record and length of detention. Concluding that the circumstances warranted release, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits of the trial. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the prosecution's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and an informant's statement
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and period of pre‑trial detention justify bail
- Application of Sections 103(1), 238, 303(2) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code in the bail context
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 238, 303(2), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- informant statement
- personal bond
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33317 of 2026
Sinku @ Mukesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B.
Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 168 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 238, 303(2), 317(2) BNS, Police
Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when informant
in his second statement raised suspicion against the applicant then he has been made
accused in the present matter.
4. He further submitted that as per prosecution deceased developed illicit relationship
with the wife of the applicant and therefore, he committed his murder.
5. He further submitted that except bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent
evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him with the instant
crime.
6. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is
in jail in the present matter since 7.5.2026.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but it
reflects, during investigation when second statement of the informant was recorded
then he raised suspicion against the applicant and thereafter he has been made accused
in the present matter. It reflects, except suspicion and confessional statement of the
applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence against the
BAIL No. 33317 of 2026
2
applicant on record.
10. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present
matter since 7.5.2026.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, 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-Sinku @ Mukesh, 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.
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.
September 18, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…