Allahabad High Court

ADITYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 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 Aditya, who was arrested in Crime No.73 of 2026 under several IPC sections and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated based on an informer's tip, and that there was no independent or corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offences. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over four months, that a co‑accused had already been granted bail, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions. The order directed his release on personal bond and two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail.
Whether the State has demonstrated a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 3
Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 311, 317(3), 331(8), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
false implication
FIR
lack of evidence
Arms Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34782 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak 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 Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2026, under Sections 331(8),
310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2) BNS and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police
Station- Nagphani, District- Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The first information report was lodged against the unknown persons with
the allegation that Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which was kept in the house of the
informant for execution of sale deed of a plot was looted along with gold
ornaments. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer the
applicant was arrested along with two other accused. False recovery of a
country made pistol, a live cartridge and Indian currency of Rs.1,50,000/-
has been shown from the personal possession of the applicant and Rs.
17,05,000/- has been shown from a car. The alleged car was driven by co-
accused Nadeem and the applicant was sitting in the said car. The alleged
vehicle does not belong to the applicant. The alleged recovery is false and
planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The
applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted
on behalf of such syndicate. Further, co-accused Kuldeep Kumar has already
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31656 of 2026. The applicant is in jail
BAIL No. 34782 of 2026
2

since 17.05.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail,
he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 applicant was not named in the first
information report. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer
the applicant was arrested along with two other accused. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused
Kuldeep Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court. Further the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than four 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- Aditya, involved in the aforesaid case, 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.

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 30, 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…