Allahabad High Court
HARSH @ GOLUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
Since the FIR was lodged belatedly, the informant was not an eye‑witness and there was no corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.
Summary
Harsh @ Golu was arrested in Crime No. 389 of 2026 for allegedly assaulting a deceased with a pointed object, leading to death. The FIR was lodged on 16‑07‑2026, four days after the alleged incident, and the informant was the brother of the deceased, not an eye‑witness. Statements of the deceased’s parents under Section 180 did not accuse the applicant, and there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The applicant has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for over two months with the trial likely to be protracted. The court found the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence sufficient to grant bail, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of an eye‑witness justify granting bail to the accused.
- Whether the lack of corroborative evidence and the applicant’s clean record remove the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 105, 180
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- lack of corroborative evidence
- Section 103
- Section 105
- Section 180
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33341 of 2026
Harsh @ Golu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shikhar Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard Ms. Kritika Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shikhar
Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2026, under Section 105
B.N.S., Police Station- T.P. Nagar, District- Meerut, during pendency of
the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
12.07.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
16.07.2026, under Section 103(1) B.N.S. The inordinate delay in lodging
the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the
course of investigation Section 103(1) B.N.S. was deleted and the case
was converted under Section 105 B.N.S. The informant is the brother of
the deceased and he is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. As per
the allegations contained in the first information report, the deceased,
while in an injured condition, informed his mother that the applicant had
assaulted him with a pointed object. According to the postmortem report,
the deceased had sustained five injuries. In the opinion of the Doctor the
cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is
contended that mother and father of the deceased, in their statements
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., did not allege that the applicant had
assaulted the deceased. It is contended that the applicant has been
implicated only on the basis of suspicion. At this stage, there is no
BAIL No. 33341 of 2026
2
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant is in jail since 16.07.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in
case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. The informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. The
mother and father of the deceased, in their statements recorded under
Section 180 B.N.S.S., did not allege that the applicant had assaulted the
deceased. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has presently remained confined for more than two
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the
applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Harsh @ Golu, involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 18, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…