Allahabad High Court
RAMVEER AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The applicants are entitled to bail; the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramveer and another accused in a case involving offences under Sections 333, 191(2), 125, 115(2), 118(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that no independent witness linked them to the alleged crime, while the State opposed bail but did not dispute the lack of substantive evidence. The Court noted that a co‑accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench, and that the applicants had been in custody for more than seven months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Finding no material risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail on parity and the principle of presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed, subject to personal bond, sureties and standard 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
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused creates a right of parity for the present applicants
- Whether the State has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or trial delay
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 118(2), 125, 191(2), 333, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- presumption of innocence
- trial delay
- surety
- IPC
- evidence
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41345 of 2025
Ramveer And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Singh, Mohd. Jaid, Rohit
Shukla, Shivam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, as well as learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2025, under Sections 333,
191(2), 125, 115(2), 118(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, Police Station
Jamunapar, District Mathura, during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned
counsel submits that applicants have not committed the alleged crime as
well as there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The
applicants have no criminal history except present case. The applicants
are in jail since 04.10.2025. Further submission is that similarly placed
co-accused of the applicants has already granted bail vide order dated
17.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5633 of 2026
(Nitin vs. State of U.P.). Learned counsel for the applicants has further
submitted that if the applicants are released on bail on parity, they 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, but does not
dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicants has
already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
BAIL No. 41345 of 2025
2
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicants. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Co-accused of the applicants has already
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the
applicants have remained confined for more than seven 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 applicants,
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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Bail Application is allowed.
Let the applicants-Ramveer and Susheel, 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…