Allahabad High Court

SHUBHAM SINGH @ BOSversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shubham Singh, who was charged under Sections 105, 115(2), 303(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code in a case arising from an incident at Bidhnu police station. The applicant argued that he was not named in the original FIR and that his alleged involvement was based solely on an unreliable statement by a co‑accused who was in police custody, with no test identification parade or other corroborative evidence. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for more than six months, the charge‑sheet had been filed, and there was no material suggesting a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, Shubham Singh, is entitled to bail despite the charges under Sections 105, 115(2), 303(2), 351(3) and 352 IPC.
Whether the lack of the applicant's name in the FIR, absence of a test identification parade and lack of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or delay the trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 303(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
identification parade
FIR
co‑accused testimony
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34652 of 2026

Shubham Singh @ Bos
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Sonam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. 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. 50 of 2026, under Sections 105, 115(2),
303(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Bidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar
during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections
115(2), 351(3), 352, 110 B.N.S. During investigation, injured Uday Baba
succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, Section 110 B.N.S. was deleted
and Sections 105, 303(2) B.N.S. were added. During the course of
investigation, the injured Pawan Tripathi disclosed the name of co-accused
Chand Babu @ Nisar @ Chhotu. The said Chand Babu while in police
custody disclosed the name of the applicant. It is contended that the said
statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The applicant
neither assaulted the brother of the informant nor was involved in the alleged
incident nor has committed any offence. It is next contended that no test
identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this
stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-
29 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 09.03.2026 and if he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 34652 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 the applicant was not named in the
first information report. Co-accused Chand Babu @ Nisar @ Chhotu while
in police custody disclosed the name of the applicant. No test identification
parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for more than six 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- Shubham Singh @ Bos, 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
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…