Allahabad High Court
RANVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding that he had made out a case for bail.
Summary
Ranveer Singh was arrested in connection with Crime No.210 of 2025, alleged to have committed offences under Sections 123, 69, 351(3), 308(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. After a first bail application was rejected, he filed a second bail petition claiming false implication and noting that the victim’s statement had already been recorded, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant’s innocence could not be determined at the pre‑trial stage and that he might misuse the liberty of bail. The Court, after considering the submissions and the material on record, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail without expressing any view on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two local sureties and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused at the pre‑trial stage despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC and IT Act.
- Whether the risk of evidence tampering or commission of further offences justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 308(5), 351(3), 69
- Information Technology Act — s. 67A
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- false implication
- evidence tampering
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7461 of 2026
Ranveer Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Pathak, Gaurav
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant,
today in the Court is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the entire material available on record.
3. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant.
First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.33788 of 2025.
4. The applicant-Ranveer Singh has filed this second bail
application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime
No.210 of 2025, under Sections 123, 69, 351(3), 308(5) BNS
and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station Sarai Inayat,
District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel
further argued after passing of the cognizance order dated
07.11.2025, the trial commenced, thereafter the witnesses were
not appearing on account of which bailable warrant as well as
non-bailable-warrants were issued against them. Learned
counsel next argued that the statement of P.W.1-victim was
BAIL No. 7461 of 2026
2
recorded on 13.05.2026 and since the statement of P.W.1-
victim has already been recorded, therefore there are no
chances of tampering with the evidence. It is thus contended
that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Several other
submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the
allegations made against the applicant have also been placed
before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also
been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law
and shall faithfully make himself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions
which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He lastly
submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since
07.08.2025.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not
deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on
bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse
the liberty of bail.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
8. Let applicant Ranveer Singh involved in aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and
two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution
BAIL No. 7461 of 2026
3
witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial
court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 14, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…