Allahabad High Court

CHANDAN KUMAR MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

In the absence of substantive evidence linking the applicant to the offence and with no demonstrable risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chandan Kumar Mishra, who was not named in the FIR but was implicated through a co-accused's confessional statement in a case under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2). The applicant argued innocence, lack of substantive evidence, and that no charge had been framed against him despite a charge sheet being filed. The State opposed bail, asserting the earlier rejection order was lawful. The Court observed that the applicant’s role was vague, no concrete evidence linked him to the offence, and there was no risk of tampering, intimidation or trial delay. Consequently, the Court granted bail with standard conditions and directed the trial court to expedite the trial under Section 309 of the CrPC.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused not named in the FIR but mentioned in a co-accused's confessional statement where no substantive evidence exists.
Whether the State’s opposition, citing no illegality in the earlier bail rejection, suffices to deny bail.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 309
Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
confessional statement
charge sheet
presumption of innocence
expeditious trial
Section 309 CrPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8887 of 2026

Chandan Kumar Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Gaurav Singh,
Kamlendra Tripathi, Pawan Kumar,
Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rishabh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 605 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS,
Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel for the applicant has
further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and his name has
surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. No recovery has been taken
from the possession of the applicant. There is no public or independent witness against
the applicant. Learned counsel submits that applicant has not committed the alleged
crime. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. As per report submitted by the Incharge CJM, Mainpuri, charge sheet has
been submitted on 8.4.2026, but till date, no charge has been framed against the
applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the the
bail application. Applicant is in jail since 09.11.2025. Learned counsel for the
applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, 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
BAIL No. 8887 of 2026
2

that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order.

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 applicant. The
applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was disclosed in the confessional
statement of the co-accused. Charge sheet has already been submitted. At this stage
there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the
applicant has remained confined for about ten 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-Chandan Kumar Mishra, 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.

It is further directed that the trial court shall conclude the trial of the case, strictly in
view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible, from the
date of production of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 8, 2026
Brijesh

Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…