Allahabad High Court
GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The accused, not being initially named in the FIR, is entitled to bail.
Summary
The accused Gautam applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 674 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the IPC and Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated after the informant, Sabir Ali, added his name eight days after filing the FIR, which originally named only four other persons. The counsel argued that there was no basis in the FIR for naming Gautam and that the addition was driven by personal enmity. The State opposed bail. The Court observed that the FIR did not initially assign any role to Gautam and, without examining the merits, held that he is entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and sureties, following the Supreme Court’s recent bail policy pronouncements.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused, not named in the FIR at the outset, is entitled to bail despite serious charges under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the alleged false implication and personal enmity justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- FIR
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- pre‑trial detention
- enquiry
- Supreme Court bail policy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43151 of 2025
Gautam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, Shiv
Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for accused applicant
and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Gautam to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 674 of 2025, under
Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2) 351(3) 352 BNS and Section 4/25/27
Arms Act, P.S.- Banna Devi, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of
trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated during investigation in the FIR dated
27.09.2025 lodged by Sri Sabir Ali, the father of injured Mohd. Hasan
with the allegation that four persons had assaulted Mohd. Hasan. The
accused/applicant was not amongst those four persons. It is after eight
days that the name of accused/applicant has been taken by the informant
and injured. It is further contended that in the statement of informant
there is no disclosure that how the names of four persons was known to
him and why the name of accused/applicant has not been mentioned in the
FIR at that point of time. It is the contention of learned counsel that the
applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity between the
accused/applicant and informant as there is allegation that
accused/applicant was having some relations with the daughter of
informant. It is therefore, subsequently the name of accused/applicant has
been indicted in the case and assigned the main role of inflicting the knife
BAIL No. 43151 of 2025
2
injuries. The applicant has criminal history of one case, wherein he is on
bail. The previous FIR was also lodged by the same informant. The
charge sheet is submitted. The trial is at nascent stage.The accused
applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2025. He seeks to be enlarged
on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that no role is assigned initially in the FIR against the
accused/applicant, though the FIR is specifically restricted to allegation
against four named persons, the accused/applicant is entitled to be
released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 23, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…