Allahabad High Court
ARUN RICHHARIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Bail was granted because, on the material before the court, the circumstantial evidence and lack of corroborative proof did not establish a prima facie case of murder, and the applicant’s prior minor offences did not preclude bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Arun Richhariya, who was arrested in a murder case (Crime No. 70 of 2026) under Sections 103(1) and 191(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the statement of a co‑accused and a confessional statement by the applicant, along with a wooden stick recovered two months after the incident. The applicant argued that the FIR named no one, the evidence was purely circumstantial, and there was no corroborative material to establish his guilt. The court noted that the applicant had four prior minor criminal cases, but these were explained and did not outweigh the lack of substantive proof. Finding that the material on record did not create a prima facie case of murder, the court held that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case where the prosecution’s evidence is solely circumstantial and lacks corroboration.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history, though consisting of minor offences, should preclude bail.
- Whether the delayed recovery of a wooden stick as evidence affects the strength of the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 191(2)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- prior criminal history
- evidence recovery
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34610 of 2026
Arun Richhariya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satya Prakash Rathor
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya
Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned
AGA-I for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 191(2) BNS,
Police Station Mahobkanth, District Mahoba during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and nobody was named in the FIR and when during investigation
one Bhupendra @ Tinku was made accused and his statement was recorded
then he disclosed the name of applicant.
5. He further submits, apart from the statement of co-accused and
confessional statement of applicant before police as per prosecution when
applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one wooden stick was
recovered but this recovery was made after two months.
6. He further submits, in absence of any other corroborative evidence merely
on the basis of above evidence it cannot be said that applicant committed the
murder of the deceased.
7. He further submits, however apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of four other cases but his criminal history has been
explained and these cases were of minor nature.
BAIL No. 34610 of 2026
2
8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
30.06.2026.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed
the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR
and it reflects, during investigation name of applicant has been surfaced
through the statement of co-accused. It further reflects, apart from the
statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before
police however as per prosecution on the pointing out of applicant one
wooden stick was also recovered but it reflects, this recovery was made after
two months. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned
counsel for applicant that in absence of any other corroborative evidence
merely on the basis of above evidence prima facie it cannot be said that
applicant committed the murder of the deceased along with others.
12. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of four cases but his criminal history has been explained in
the instant bail application and it reflects, these cases were of minor nature.
13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 30.06.2026 i.e. for
last three months and charge-sheet has been filed.
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 -Arun Richhariya be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the 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
BAIL No. 34610 of 2026
3
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
Checking your session…