Allahabad High Court
ANUJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the evidence on record was insufficient to deny bail at this stage.
Summary
Anuj Kumar was charged in a murder case (Crime No. 103 of 2025) under several IPC sections, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. The prosecution’s case rests mainly on the applicant’s own confessional statement, the statement of co‑accused Pranshu Pal, and a two‑second phone call with the deceased; no other substantive evidence was presented. The co‑accused had already been released on bail, and the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for almost a year. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the applicant at the bail stage. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused when the prosecution’s case is based solely on confessional statements and minimal circumstantial evidence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 137(2), 238, 315 BNS, 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5g, 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- criminal history
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- murder
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39939 of 2025
Anuj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudhakar Shukla
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The instant matter has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated
27.01.2026 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
2. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhakar
Shukla, learned counsel for informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned
AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 70(2),
137(2), 315 BNS, Section 5g/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act,
Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the
trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, nobody was named in the FIR
but during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present
matter through the statement of co-accused Pranshu Pal @ Sintu and apart
from the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant, as
per prosecution, applicant had conversation with the deceased of about two
seconds and except these evidences, there is no other evidence against the
applicant on record.
5. He further submits, on the basis of above evidences, it cannot be said that
applicant along with others committed murder of the deceased.
6. He further submits, even co-accused Pranshu Pal @ Sintu has been
released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
06.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43213 of 2025
BAIL No. 39939 of 2025
2
and as far as evidence is concerned the case of applicant is at par with him.
7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 22.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.
8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed
the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, except the
confessional statements of applicant and co-accused before police and CDR
of applicant there is no other evidence against him and even his CDR shows
he had mobile conversation of only two seconds with the deceased. This
Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant
that merely on the basis of such evidences prima facie at this stage it cannot
be said that applicant also involved in the commission of alleged crime along
with others.
11. Further, co-accused Pranshu Pal @ Sintu has been released on bail and
as far as evidence is concerned the case of applicant is at par with him.
12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 22.04.2025 i.e. for almost a year.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant - Anuj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
BAIL No. 39939 of 2025
3
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 19, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…