Allahabad High Court

KAMAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that Kamal Singh is entitled to bail as there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamal Singh, who was charged under Sections 302, 420, 201, 475 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the informant’s later statement implicating him was unreliable, further noting that the insurance policy did not list him as a nominee, negating any motive. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over ten months, there was no evidence of a risk of tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay, and that a similar informant had previously been granted bail. Consequently, the court ordered that Kamal Singh be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, cheating, abetment of suicide, forgery and criminal conspiracy under the IPC.
Whether the applicant’s non‑inclusion in the FIR and the alleged unreliability of the informant’s second statement preclude a reasonable apprehension of guilt.
Whether there exists a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay if bail is granted.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies bail under the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 420, 475

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
false implication
pre‑trial detention
witness intimidation
evidence tampering
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38470 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav,
Mahenam Haroon, Rajesh Kumar Yadav
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. 345 of 2023, under Sections 302, 420,
201, 475, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Rehra, District Amroha during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. During the course of investigation, the informant himself was
made accused and was arrayed as an accused by the Investigating Officer.
Subsequently, in the second statement of the informant while in the police
custody the name of the applicant surfaced. It is contended that the said
statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. The applicant
has no nexus with the alleged incident. The policy issued by the HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Company does not reflect the applicant as a nominee, in
the event of untoward incident, thereby negating the alleged motive sought
to be attributed to him. It is next contended that the informant- Vedprakash
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39267 of 2025, Vedprakash v. State of
U.P. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of Vedprakash.
Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-28 of the
affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since
11.05.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 38470 of 2025
2

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 applicant was not named in the
first information report. During the course of investigation, the informant
himself was made accused and was arrayed as an accused by the
Investigating Officer. Subsequently, in the second statement of the informant
while in the police custody the name of the applicant surfaced. The policy
issued by the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company does not reflect the
applicant as a nominee, in the event of untoward incident. The informant-
Vedprakash has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has
remained confined for more than ten 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- Kamal Singh, 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.

March 19, 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…