Allahabad High Court

AJEET PRASADversusSTATE 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 Ajeet Prasad, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 105 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay, and that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, indicating a weak case against him. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The Court noted the belated FIR, the hostile testimony of PW‑1 and PW‑2, the applicant’s clean record, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over two years, finding no reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for bail denial
Whether the hostile nature of prosecution witnesses indicates a lack of evidential basis for continued detention
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or causing further trial delay
Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial custody justify granting bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 352

Subjects

bail
false implication
delay in FIR
hostile witnesses
no criminal antecedents
pre‑trial detention
Section 105 IPC
Section 352 IPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34925 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Mishra
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-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 408 of 2024, under Sections 105, 352
B.N.S., Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria during the pendency of
the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is elder
brother of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.08.2024, whereas the first
information report was lodged by the father of the applicant on 04.09.2024.
Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. There was no enmity between the applicant and the
deceased. Further, during the course of trial, the informant- Harilal Prasad
was examined as PW-1 and the close relative of the informant namely
Ramkaran Prasad was examined as PW-2. Both the aforesaid witnesses have
not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the
trial court vide orders dated 25.03.206 and 03.08.2026 respectively. The
testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are collectively annexed as
Annexure-4 to the affidavit. It is contended that the applicant is a law
abiding citizen, who cooperated with the police investigation and had joined
the trial. The applicant never influenced the witnesses and tampered with the
evidence. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude
early. The applicant is in jail since 05.09.2024 having no criminal history
BAIL No. 34925 of 2026
2

and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the 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 has been
lodged belatedly. During the course of trial, the informant- Harilal Prasad
and the close relative of the informant namely Ramkaran Prasad, who were
examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, have not supported the
prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the trial court vide orders
dated 25.03.206 and 03.08.2026 respectively. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
two years 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- Ajeet Prasad, 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 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…