Allahabad High Court

FAIM ALIAS FAHIMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, given the belated FIR, lack of prima facie evidence against the applicant, and no risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Faim alias Fahim in a criminal case under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed false implication, citing a three‑day delay in lodging the FIR and that the informant’s statement under Section 180 indicated intoxication and no prior enmity. The prosecution could not refute these points and the applicant had no criminal record, had been in custody for over six months, and was not identified as the principal offender. The court found the FIR belated, the allegations vague, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial
Whether the delay in filing the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 105, 180

Subjects

bail
delay FIR
false implication
intoxication
no prior enmity
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34717 of 2026

Faim Alias Fahim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Praveen Tripathi, Advocate on
behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand,
learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Praveen Tripathi,
counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0033 of 2026,
under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Juhi, Southern
(Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar), District- Kanpur Nagar during
pendency of the trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to
have occurred on 4.3.2026, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 7.3.2026. The delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. Placing
reliance upon the statement of the informant recorded under
Section 180 B.N.S.S. it is contended that the applicant, other
accused and the brother of the informant (since deceased) had
consumed liquor and were intoxicated. There was no prior enmity
BAIL No. 34717 of 2026
2

between the parties. The incident had occurred at the spur of the
moment without any premeditation. The applicant neither had
any requisite knowledge nor had any intention to commit the
offence. It is next contended that as per the postmortem report,
the deceased had sustained three injuries. Injury no.1 was on the
occipital region, whereas the other injuries were on other parts of
the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is coma due
to antemortem head injury. Vague and general allegations have
been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been
nominated as principal offender, who caused injury no.1 to the
deceased. The applicant is in jail since 17.3.2026 having no
criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

5. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail
but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information
report has been lodged belatedly. The informant in his statement
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. stated that the applicant,
other accused and the brother of the informant (since deceased)
had consumed liquor and were intoxicated. There was no prior
enmity between the parties. Vague and general allegations have
been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been
nominated as principal offender, who caused injury no.1 to the
deceased. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than six
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so
when 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Faim @ Fahim involved in the aforesaid case
BAIL No. 34717 of 2026
3

be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the
trial court.

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
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…