Allahabad High Court

RADHE SHYAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The applicant, Radhe Shyam, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 53 of 2026) in which nine persons were alleged to have assaulted the informant's father and grandfather, the latter dying from head injuries. The FIR named the applicant among the accused but did not assign him a specific role, and the prosecution presented no corroborative evidence linking him to the fatal injury. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and had been in custody for over five months without a realistic prospect of a speedy trial. The State opposed bail, but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or that the applicant was the principal offender. The court, finding the role assigned to the applicant vague and lacking corroboration, concluded there was no sufficient ground to deny bail. Accordingly, 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 pressurize witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges and the death of the victim.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying the trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
false implication
lack of corroborative evidence
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34136 of 2026

Radhe Shyam
.....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. 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 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.
BAIL No. 34136 of 2026
2

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 Radhe Shyam, 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.

September 24, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…