Allahabad High Court
SUNILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the circumstantial evidence and the recovered items were not sufficient to constitute a prima facie case against the applicant, entitling him to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil, accused in a murder case (Crime No.184 of 2026). The applicant was named in the FIR based on circumstantial evidence: he allegedly took the deceased from his house on 18 April 2026 and later pointed to a blood‑stained spade and his own blood‑stained cloth recovered from an open area. The prosecution argued these facts created a prima facie case, while the defence contended that the body was found the next day, the recovered items could not be linked to the deceased’s blood, and there was no other incriminating evidence. The Court found that the circumstances were insufficient to establish guilt and noted the applicant’s clean record and five‑month pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the Court granted bail with standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the murder charge.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented establishes a prima facie case to deny bail under Section 103(1) CrPC.
- Whether the recovery of a blood‑stained spade and cloth from an open place can be linked to the alleged murder for bail purposes.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and prolonged pre‑trial detention affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- Section 103 CrPC
- pre‑trial detention
- murder
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33789 of 2026
Sunil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Srivastava, Kumar Vikrant, Vijay
Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Patel, G.A., Vivek Kumar
Mishra
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Kumar Vikrant and Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsels for
the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant
and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, 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.184 of 2026,
under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District
Hapur during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsels for the applicant submit that however, applicant is
named in the FIR along with others but it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and except the fact that applicant called the deceased from the
house and thereafter next day his dead body was found and on the
pointing out of applicant one bloodstained spade and his bloodstained
cloths were recovered, there is no other evidence against the applicant on
record.
4. They further submit that as per prosecution applicant had taken the
deceaed on 18.4.2026 at about 5.00 PM in the evening and dead body of
the deceased was found next day and, therefore, this evidence cannot be
said to be incriminating circumstance against the applicant.
5. They further argued that as far as above recoveries are concerned, the
same were made from an open place, which was accessible to all and
even alleged recovered items till date could not be connected with the
BAIL No. 33789 of 2026
2
instant crime as there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that the
blood found on the alleged recovered items was of the deceased.
6. They further submit that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.4.2026, i.e., for the
last more than five months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that considering the material
available on record, prima facie it cannot be said that applicant is
innocent.
8. They however could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced
by the learned counsel for the applicant so far as the evidence available
against the applicant on record is concerned.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but it is a
case of circumstantial evidence and according to the prosecution there
are following circumstances against the applicant:- (a) applicant had taken
the deceased from his home on 18.4.2026 at about 5.00 PM in the evening
and thereafter his dead body was found and (b) when applicant was
arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained spade allegedly used in
the crime and his blood stained cloth were recovered.
11. As far as first circumstance is concerned, considering the fact that
dead body of the deceased was found on 19.4.2026, i.e., next day and
from the evening of 18.4.2026 till the recovery of his dead body, there is
no evidence that applicant was along with the deceased, in considered
view of this Court prima facie this circumstance cannot be said to be
incriminating circumstance against him.
12. Further, as far as second circumstance is concerned, from the recovery
memo it reflects that alleged recoveries were made from near the Factory
from an open place, which was accessible to all and even till date alleged
recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime as there is
no evidence that the blood found on the alleged recovered spade and
cloths of applicant was of the deceased, therefore, on the basis of this
circumstance also prima facie it cannot be said that applicant committed
BAIL No. 33789 of 2026
3
the murder of the deceased.
13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail in since 20.4.2026, i.e., for the last more
than five months.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant-Sunil 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.
17. 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.
18. 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…