Allahabad High Court
RAMPALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
In the absence of eyewitness evidence and with a delayed FIR, the applicant made out a case for bail, leading the court to grant bail.
Summary
The applicant Rampal sought bail in a murder case (Crime No. 241 of 2025) alleging he killed the informant's mother on 16 May 2025. The prosecution argued that the FIR was filed 18 hours after the incident, a recovered weapon was linked to the applicant, and call data records placed him near the crime scene. The defense contended there were no eyewitnesses, the FIR delay was unexplained, and CCTV footage showed the applicant at his home, not at the crime scene, while the CDR’s coverage was too broad to pinpoint his location. The court noted the Supreme Court’s observation that pending cases do not bar bail if the applicant’s case is otherwise meritorious. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the delayed FIR, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, the court found a prima facie case for bail and ordered his release on bond with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the FIR is delayed and there is no eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the presence of a recovered weapon and call data records indicating proximity to the crime scene preclude bail.
- Whether pending criminal cases against the accused affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- FIR delay
- eyewitness absence
- CCTV footage
- call data records
- weapon recovery
- pending criminal cases
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38623 of 2025
Rampal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pradeep Kumar Srinette
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.105 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Srinette, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.241 of 2025, under Sections
103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly,
during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the
murder of the mother of the informant in the night of 16.05.2025 at about
8:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR is delayed by
about 18 hours and there is no explanation for the said delay caused. There is
no eyewitness account of the incident. The applicant has simply been made
an accused on the basis of suspicion only. The allegations against him are
false. Subsequently, the CCTV footage of the area was obtained, and the
applicant is not visible in any of the footage except near his house, where he
is seen entering his house on the fateful day at about 8:30 p.m. and leaving at
about 8:35 p.m. in the police uniform, which indicates that the applicant has
not committed the said offence. The criminal history of one case assigned to
the applicant stands explained. He is in jail since 04.06.2025 and undertakes
BAIL No. 38623 of 2025
2
to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant
was seen at his house and leaving his house soon after the time of the
incident, i.e., 8:00 p.m., and the CDR also indicates that he was present near
the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. A banka has been
recovered at the pointing out of the applicant; as such, he is not entitled to
bail.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the CDR
does not indicate the exact presence of any accused person, as the tower
location covers several kilometers.
8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no eyewitness account of the incident and
the FIR is delayed by about 18 hours, 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.
10. Let the applicant- Rampal, 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.
11. 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
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…