Allahabad High Court

RAJ SHEKHARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

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

Summary

Raj Shekhar applied for bail in Criminal Case No. 238 of 2026, alleging false implication and lack of independent witnesses to the recovery of two mobile phones and Rs.500. The applicant argued that no corroborative evidence linked him to the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Income Tax Act, and that a co‑accused, Ankit Kumar, had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The Court found that, prima facie, there was no evidence tying the applicant to the crime, no risk of tampering or witness intimidation, and noted the applicant's clean record and three‑month pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, Raj Shekhar, is entitled to bail despite the pending charges under the IPC and Income Tax Act.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act — s. 66-D
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
false implication
lack of evidence
co‑accused parity
pre‑trial detention
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34598 of 2026

Raj Shekhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manu Sharma, Tarun Sonkar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

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

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2026, under Sections 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. and 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station- Phase III,
District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of two mobile phones
and Indian currency of Rs.500/- has been shown from the applicant. There is
no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovered articles do not
link the applicant with any offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any
illicit transaction. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to connect
the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ankit Kumar
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27798 of 2026. The applicant claims
parity. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2026 having no criminal history
and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
BAIL No. 34598 of 2026
2

connect the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ankit
Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
three months and after submission of the 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- Raj Shekhar, 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 29, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…