Allahabad High Court
ANSHU KUMAR DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
In the absence of substantive evidence linking the accused to the offence and without any demonstrated risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Anshu Kumar Dubey, who was charged under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, asserted that no recovery was made from his possession, and argued that there were no eye‑witnesses or substantive evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The State opposed bail, insisting that the earlier rejection order was lawful. The court observed that the role assigned to the applicant was vague, no independent witness existed, and the applicant had been in custody for over nine months with no prospect of a speedy trial, while the State failed to demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions. The bail was granted subject to compliance with those conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the absence of substantive evidence and eye‑witnesses.
- Whether the State has shown a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or trial delay to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 303(2), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 303
- Section 317
- lack of evidence
- witness intimidation
- trial delay
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40653 of 2025
Anshu Kumar Dubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aadesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 161 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS,
Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent,
neither any recovery whatsoever has been alleged to be recovered from
the possession of the applicant nor having any intention or motive to
commit such type of offence and he has been been falsely implicated in
the subject case. Learned counsel submits that except the present case,
applicant have antecedents of three cases, in which, he has already
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which have explained
in para '18' of sub-para A, B and C of the present application. He further
submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The
applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants
has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail on parity, 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 bail application be rejected.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
BAIL No. 40653 of 2025
2
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. At this stage
there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than nine 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 that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail. Bail Application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Anshu Kumar Dubey, 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…