Allahabad High Court

RAMREETversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and given his clean record, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramreet, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 53 of 2026) involving alleged assault on the informant’s father and grandfather, the latter dying from head injuries. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR only ascribed a vague, general role to him and that no corroborative evidence linked him to the fatal injury. The State and the informant opposed bail, but could not demonstrate any specific involvement or a risk of tampering, intimidation, or flight. The Court noted the applicant’s clean record, the lack of concrete evidence, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension justifying denial of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Whether the evidence on record sufficiently links the applicant to the offence to justify denial of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 105
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 180, 191(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
evidence
witness intimidation
presumption of innocence
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33932 of 2026

Ramreet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Maurya, Sanjeev Kumar Verma,
Suresh Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Sri S. P. Pandey, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the
informant, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available
on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Dubauliya,
District- Basti during pendency of the trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the first
information report, nine named accused including the applicant and
unknown persons are alleged to have abused, threatened and assaulted the
father and grand-father of the informant. The grand-father of the
informant succumbed to his injuries. According to the post-mortem report
conducted on 29.03.2026, the deceased sustained three injures on the head
region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is shock and
haemorrhage due to ante mortem head injury. As per the statements of
the informant and the injured Ramu Kashyap, recorded under Section 180
B.N.S.S. also no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is
contended that vague and general role has been assigned to the
applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender
who caused injury on the head of the deceased. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
BAIL No. 33932 of 2026
2

applicant is in jail since 30.03.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in
case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State have
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 a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for more than five months and
after submission of the charge sheet 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Ramreet, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
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 23, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…