Allahabad High Court
AAZADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, on the basis of the FIR delay and the medical report, the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aazad, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 85, 64(1), 351(2) and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging false implication and pointing to a delayed FIR and a medical report that noted healed injuries, suggesting the victim had fabricated the injuries. The State and the informant opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the medical evidence as factors creating a prima facie case for bail. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court held that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions and the possibility of cancellation for breach.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the medical report indicating healed injuries create a prima facie case for bail.
- Whether the applicant, alleged to be falsely implicated, is entitled to bail pending trial.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2) BNS, 351(2), 64(1), 85
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
- prima facie
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35427 of 2025
Aazad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kushagra Srivastava, Manoj Kumar
Tripathi, Satya Prakash Singh,
Shahrukh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aftab Khan, G.A., Pragya Pandey
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.107 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.
Rabiya Barry, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan
Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.427 of 2025, under Sections 85,
64(1), 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur,
during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
medical examination of the victim was conducted on the date of institution
of FIR, wherein healed bite marks over both shoulders, redness and healed
scratch marks over breast were observed by the doctor concerned.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the medical
examination was conducted after 35 days of the incident, as such, the
presence of redness indicates that the injuries have been manufactured by the
victim. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the victim. It is a clear-cut case
of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since
BAIL No. 35427 of 2025
2
25.8.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the medical report of the
victim, which was conducted after 35 days of the incident, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application
is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Aazad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…