Allahabad High Court
HARIOMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the CrPC for Hariom, who was implicated in a case involving multiple IPC offences but was not named in the FIR. The applicant argued that his name surfaced only during investigation and that there was no credible evidence linking him to the offences, seeking parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. The court found that, given the lack of evidence, the applicant's two‑month pre‑trial detention, and the absence of any apprehension of misuse of liberty, bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the court ordered Hariom’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the applicant was not named in the FIR and no credible evidence links him to the alleged offences.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if released, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay.
- Whether the bail granted to co‑accused warrants granting bail to the applicant on the principle of parity.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b), 318(3), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)(a)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- investigation
- evidence
- witness intimidation
- trial delay
- personal bond
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8066 of 2026
Hariom
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : M.P.S. Chauhan, Tarunesh Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA
for the State-respondent.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2025,
under Sections 318(3), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b), 61(2)(a) BNS, Police
Station Rajpura, District Sambhal during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. At
this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the
offfence. The named co-accused Onkareshwar Mishra Karan and Amit have
been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated
16.07.2025 and 08.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.
22819 of 2025 and 26494 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. It is next
contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime
syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in para 6 of the affidavit. The applicant is in
jail since 23.01.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 8066 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of
investigation. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant
with the offfence. The named co-accused Onkareshwar Mishra Karan and
Amit have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and
after submission of charge sheet 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
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Hariom, involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on his 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; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
March 19, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…