Allahabad High Court

RAJUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

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

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Raju, who is accused under Sections 103(1) and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code for murder. Raju contended that the FIR narrative is false, the informant’s testimony is doubtful, and that his co‑accused Naresh had already been released on bail, making his situation comparable. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court noted Raju’s prior criminal history, including an acquitted POCSO case and two minor cases, but found the allegations against him unsubstantiated and the informant’s statements unreliable. Considering the length of his pre‑trial detention (over one and a half years) and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the court granted bail with standard conditions, expressly stating that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 103(1) and 351(3) of the IPC given the nature of the alleged murder.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history, including an acquitted POCSO case, bars bail.
Whether the doubtful credibility of the informant’s testimony affects the bail decision.
Whether the fact that the co‑accused Naresh was released on bail is relevant to Raju’s bail application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 351(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
Section 103
Section 351
POCSO Act
criminal history
informant testimony
pre‑trial detention
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34599 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar
Saroj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 351(3) BNS,
Police Station Kithaur, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in
the FIR along with co-accused Naresh and according to the FIR he along
with co-accused Naresh and one unknown person committed the murder of
the deceased but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, as per prosecution, deceased went along with
applicant and co-accused Naresh from his home and when did not return
then informant and others started searching him and they witnessed that
applicant and co-accused Naresh and one another person were making
assault upon deceased but story narrated by the informant prima facie
appears to be doubtful.

5. He further submits, it is a case of blind murder and nobody could see the
real incident and only due to previous enmity a false story has been cooked
up by the informant in the FIR.

6. He further submits, even co-accused Naresh has been released on bail by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.06.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18963 of 2026 and on facts, case of
BAIL No. 34599 of 2026
2

applicant is at par with him.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of three other cases including a case relating to
offence under the provisions of POCSO Act but in this case applicant has
been acquitted. He further submits, entire criminal history of the applicant
has been explained in the instant bail application. He further submits, in the
present matter applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

10. However, as per prosecution, applicant along with co-accused Naresh
and one another by causing injury committed the murder of the deceased
and the incident has been witnessed by informant and other witnesses but
considering the story narrated by the informant in the FIR prima facie it
reflects, neither he nor any other witness was along with the deceased and
their statements prima facie appear to be doubtful.

11. Further, even co-accused Naresh who was also named in the FIR has
been released on bail by this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par
with him.

12. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal
history of three cases but his criminal history has been explained and it
reflects, in one case relating to offence under the provisions of POCSO Act
he has been acquitted and other two cases were of minor nature.

13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025 i.e. for
last more than one and half years.

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 - Raju be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
BAIL No. 34599 of 2026
3

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.

September 29, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…