Allahabad High Court

SALMANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Salman in a case registered under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, and that there were no independent witnesses or a test identification parade for the recovered items. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court noted the belated FIR, lack of evidence linking the applicant to the recovered chain and pistol, the grant of bail to a co‑accused in identical circumstances, and the applicant’s nine‑month pre‑trial detention, concluding there was no risk of tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant's non‑mention in it warrant bail
Whether the absence of independent witnesses and a test identification parade justifies bail
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Whether parity with a co‑accused already granted bail applies

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317(2)

Subjects

bail
first information report
delay in FIR
identification parade
parity
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3483 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewendra Singh, Prajjwal Yadav, Rajesh
Prasad, Vimal Kumar Pal
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. 297 of 2025, under Sections 309(4),
317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 03.08.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
06.08.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. The applicant was arrested on 07.08.2025 along with co-
accused Islam Kadir and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
False recovery of Indian currency of Rs.24,000/-, a chain, a country made
pistol and two live cartridges has been shown from the applicant. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered chain cannot be
connected with the present offence. No test identification parade was got
conducted by the police authorities. Identically placed co-accused Islam
Kadir has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1453 of 2026, Islam Kadir v. State of
U.P. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in Paragraph-21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application and Paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is
in jail since 07.08.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the
BAIL No. 3483 of 2026
2

said liberty.

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 first information report was
lodged belatedly. The applicant was not named in the first information
report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No test
identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. Identically
placed co-accused Islam Kadir has been granted bail by this
Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost nine
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- Salman, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

May 5, 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…