Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRARAJA @ GANUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Ravindraraja @ Ganu, was arrested in a case (Crime No. 196 of 2024) based on information from an informer, although his name did not appear in the FIR. The prosecution alleged recovery of anklets, coins and Rs.2450, but there was no independent witness and the only evidence against him was a confessional statement made in police custody. The co‑accused, Ajay Rajpoot, had already been granted bail, and the applicant had been in custody for more than one year and seven months. The State could not demonstrate any risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions against tampering, pressurising witnesses and non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial
- Whether the State has shown a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- false implication
- lack of evidence
- confessional statement
- sureties
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3612 of 2026
Ravindraraja @ Ganu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. 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. 196 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 317
B.N.S., Police Station- Bar, District- Lalitpur during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an
informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of two pairs
of anklet, coins of white metal and Indian currency of Rs.2450/- has been
shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. Except the confessional statement while in police custody, at this
there is no corroborative evidence against the applicant. Co-accused Ajay
Rajpoot has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 10.2.2025
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4092 of 2025 (Ajay Rajpoot
vs. State of U.P.). The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in
para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since
15.9.2024. 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
BAIL No. 3612 of 2026
2
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer,
the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional
statement of the applicant in police custody, there is no corroborative
evidence against the applicant. Co-accused Ajay Rajpoot has been granted
bail by this court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for
more than one year seven 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, Ravindraraja @ Ganu 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.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…