Allahabad High Court
RAKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to produce any corroborative evidence and the case rests only on unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rakesh in a murder case (Criminal No. 88 of 2026) where the prosecution alleged involvement based on circumstantial evidence, a recovered mobile phone, and statements of co‑accused. The applicant argued that no one was named in the FIR, there was no motive, and the mobile phone was allegedly planted in an open area, rendering the evidence non‑corroborative. The court noted the lack of any substantive evidence beyond the confessional statements and the questionable phone recovery, and observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody for over six months. Finding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to standard conditions and a personal bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the prosecution's case is based solely on circumstantial evidence without corroboration.
- Whether the manner of recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from an open place undermines the prima facie case against the applicant.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 109(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- mobile phone recovery
- no prior criminal record
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33786 of 2026
Rakesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kuldeep Johri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.
S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.88 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 103 and 61(2) BNS, Police Station Puranpur,
District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but during
investigation it was revealed that informant had extra marital affair with
one Kuldeep and therefore, she along with Kuldeep committed the
murder of the deceased but except bald and verbal allegation, there is no
cogent evidence against the applicant on record.
4. He further argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
applicant was not having any motive to commit the instant crime and it
reflects that merely on the basis of suspicion, he has been made accused
in the present matter along with the informant of the case including co-
accused Kuldeep.
5. He further argued that as per prosecution when applicant and co-
accused Kuldeep were arrested then on their pointing out mobile phone of
the deceased was recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one
and even alleged recovery was made from an open place which was
accessible to all.
BAIL No. 33786 of 2026
2
6. He further submits that merely on the basis of above evidence, in the
absence of any other corroborative evidence prima facie it cannot be said
that applicant was involved in commission of present crime including the
informant and co-accused Kuldeep.
7. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 7.3.2026, i.e., for the
last more than six months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the
FIR. It reflects that during investigation the name of applicant was
surfaced and according to the prosecution informant developed illicit
relationship with one Kuldeep and she along with him and applicant
committed his murder but it reflects that except confessional statement of
the applicant and statement of co-accused recorded by Investigating
Officer and suspicion and recovery of mobile phone of the deceased on
the pointing out of applicant and co-accused Kuldeep, there is no other
evidence against the applicant on record.
11. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant that in the absence of any other corroborative
evidence merely on the basis of above evidence prima facie it cannot be
said that applicant also involved in commission of present crime along
with other accused especially considering the fact that recovery of mobile
phone of the deceased was made from an open place, which was
accessible to all.
12. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail in since 07.3.2026, i.e., for the last more
than six months.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 33786 of 2026
3
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Rakesh 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 29, 2026
SKM
Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…