Allahabad High Court

YASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Yaseen in a criminal case (Cr.No. 581 of 2025) involving alleged assault and subsequent death of an informant's sister‑in‑law. Yaseen argued that he was never named in the FIR and that the informant’s later statement implicating him was unreliable and unsupported by any corroborative evidence. The prosecution could not demonstrate any fresh injuries or link Yaseen to the offence, and the post‑mortem report did not substantiate the charge. The court noted Yaseen’s lack of prior criminal history and the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over seven months. Finding no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, the court held that bail was appropriate. Consequently, Yaseen was ordered to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence.
Whether the informant’s post‑FIR statement is sufficient to justify continued detention.
Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 333, 351(3)

Subjects

bail
first information report
false implication
post‑mortem report
lack of corroborative evidence
pre‑trial detention
criminal antecedents
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34670 of
2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niyaj Ahamad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Copy of CD No. 8 dated 18.02.2026 produced by learned
A.G.A. is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank
Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 581 of 2025,
under Sections 105, 115(2), 333, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station
Loni, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

4. 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. As per the allegations contained in
the first information report, the named accused Gulzar and an
unknown person are alleged to have assaulted the sister-in-law of
the informant. The sister-in-law of the informant was admitted at
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi on
20.12.2025 and was discharged on 15.01.2026. The doctor on the
discharge summary recorded that her condition at the time of
discharge was stable. Subsequently, on 01.02.2026 the
informant's sister-in-law died. As per the postmortem report, no
external mark of any fresh injury was seen. In the opinion of the
doctor, the cause of death is coma due to ante mortem brain
hemorrhage. Subsequently, on 18.02.2026 the Investigating
BAIL No. 34670 of 2026
2

Officer vide CD No. 8 dated 18.02.2026 recorded that the
informant had disclosed that he received an information that apart
from the named accused Gulzar, the applicant was also involved
in the incident dated 19.12.2025. It is contended that the said
statement is an afterthought and unreliable. The applicant has no
concern with the alleged incident. The death of the informant's
sister-in-law cannot be attributed to the incident dated
19.12.2025. The postmortem examination report does not support
the prosecution case. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in
jail since 25.02.2026 having no criminal history and if he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. 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. The name of the
applicant was disclosed by the informant in his statement. As per
the postmortem report, no external mark of any fresh injury was
seen. Subsequently, on 18.02.2026 the informant had disclosed
the Investigating Officer that apart from the named accused
Gulzar, the applicant was also involved in the incident dated
19.12.2025. The postmortem examination report does not support
the prosecution case. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained
confined for more than seven 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.

7. Let the applicant- Yaseen, 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
BAIL No. 34670 of 2026
3

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.

8. 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…