Allahabad High Court
RIYAZUDDINversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Riyazuddin was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No.31 of 2025) after a FIR was lodged fifteen hours after the incident. The FIR initially named three accused and later, on the same day, the informant implicated Riyazuddin as the perpetrator. The applicant contended that there was no eyewitness evidence, the witnesses’ statements were recorded four days after the incident, and he had no prior criminal record. The State argued that the applicant was seen near the crime scene in an inebriated state. Considering the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of substantive evidence and that the accusation was based merely on suspicion, the court held that a prima facie case for bail existed and granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties, with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 103(1) of the CrPC given the delay in FIR and lack of substantive evidence.
- Whether suspicion alone suffices to justify continued detention of the accused.
- Whether the applicant's alleged presence near the crime scene in an intoxicated state affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 103 CrPC
- delay in FIR
- suspicion
- prima facie
- criminal procedure
- murder case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37052 of 2025
Riyazuddin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajit Pratap Kushwaha, Amar Bahadur
Maurya, Danish, Dhirendra Kumar
Srivastava, Rajiv Sisodia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.98 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2025, under Sections 103(1)
BNS, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, 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 by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. Initially, the FIR was instituted against three accused persons
and 3-4 unknown persons, but subsequently the informant gave an
application before the police station the same day stating that it was the
applicant who had taken the deceased with him and had committed his
murder.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
evidence of applicant being visible near the place of occurrence. The
applicant has been made an accused on the basis of suspicion only. The
statement of the witnesses has been recorded belatedly after four days of the
BAIL No. 37052 of 2025
2
incident. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 3.4.2025.
He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that applicant was visible near the place of occurrence in an
inebriated state and had stated that he was over drunk, as such, was roaming
about.
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 coupled by the fact that
applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion only and the
statement of witnesses has been recorded after four 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- Riyazuddin, 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.)
March 18, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…