Allahabad High Court
RANU @ RANA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ranu @ Rana Singh, who was arrested under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC in a case registered in 2006. The applicant claimed innocence, asserted that the police recovery was fabricated, and highlighted the absence of any eye‑witness or substantive evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The State opposed bail, arguing that the earlier bail rejection was lawful. The Court observed that no independent witness corroborated the recovery, the applicant had been in custody for over eight months, and there was no material risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in the absence of substantive evidence linking the accused to the offence under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention of more than eight months warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether there is any risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.
- Whether the earlier bail rejection order was legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 399, 402
Subjects
- bail
- Section 399 IPC
- Section 402 IPC
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38836 of 2025
Ranu @ Rana Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrendu Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh,
Shiv Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2006, under Sections 399 and
402 IPC, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia, during the pendency of the
trial.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel
submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime as well as the
recovery shown by the police is fake and there is no independent or eye
witness of the alleged recovery. The applicant has no relationship with the
other co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 03.10.2025. Learned
counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is
released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-
operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order. He prays
that the present application be dismissed.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent or eye witness of the
alleged recover shown by the police. At this stage there is no substantive
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has
remained confined for more than eight 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 delay the trial or intimidate the
witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion
BAIL No. 38836 of 2025
2
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is
allowed.
Let the applicant-Ranu @ Rana Singh, involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 5, 2026
Brijesh
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…