Allahabad High Court

REV DEEPAK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Rev. Deepak Kumar, who was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in a property dispute. The applicant argued that the matter was purely civil, stemming from a 1956 transfer deed, and that there was no evidence linking him to any criminal act. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's claim of lack of corroborative evidence or his clean criminal record. The Court found the dispute to be civil in nature, noted the applicant's four‑month pre‑trial detention, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offence appears to be a civil dispute with no corroborative evidence against the accused.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Whether the duration of pre‑trial detention and lack of criminal antecedents justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 3, 5

Subjects

bail
civil dispute
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
property dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34479 of 2026

Rev Deepak Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priti Verma, Siya Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 301 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section
3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Kotwali,
District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. By virtue of a transfer deed dated 20.12.1956,
the land in question was transferred by "The Women's Union Missionary
Society, USA" in favour of "Christian Mission to the Amritsar Diocesan
Trust Association". The applicant is the secretary of the said Association.
Thereafter, the land in question remained in the possession of the applicant's
trust. The District Magistrate, Kanpur by way of ex-parte proceeding passed
an order dated 06.08.2024, whereby the property in question was declared as
nazul land. It is contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The
applicant has neither forged nor manipulated any document. At this stage,
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant is in jail since 20.05.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in
case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 dispute is purely civil in nature. At this
BAIL No. 34479 of 2026
2

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 four months and after submission of
charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Rev Deepak Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,

(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 28, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…