Allahabad High Court
RIHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that, given the applicant’s role as driver, absence of prior convictions and the bail already granted to the co‑accused, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rihan, the driver of a truck alleged to have misappropriated 888 bags of rice belonging to an informant. The prosecution charged him under several IPC sections including 318(4), 316(5), 303(2), 317(2), 238(a) and 61(2) BNS. The applicant argued that he was merely the driver, had no prior criminal record, and that the truck owner and co‑accused, Kamil, had already been released on bail. The State contended that both brothers were involved in the misappropriation but could not dispute Kamil’s bail. After reviewing the facts, the court found no reason to deny bail, noting the applicant’s clean record and the precedent of the co‑accused’s release, and ordered his release on bail with personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under IPC sections 318, 316, 303, 317, 238 and 61.
- Whether the release of the co‑accused on bail influences the applicant’s bail eligibility.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and short period of pre‑trial detention justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 238(a), 303(2), 316(5), 317(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS
Subjects
- bail
- criminal misappropriation
- Indian Penal Code
- driver
- co‑accused
- sureties
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9636 of 2026
Rihan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Subham Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Santosh Kumar Gupta, G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri
Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 478 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 303(2),317(2), 238(a),
61(2) BNS, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in
the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was the driver of the
truck and as per allegation informant entrusted 888 bags of rice which have been
misappropriated by the applicant alongwith co-accused Kamil the owner of the truck.
4. He further submitted that entire allegation made against the applicant are totally
false and even owner of the truck Kamil has been released on bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 30.4.2026 passed in Crl Mis. Bail Application No. 11832 of
2026 and as applicant is only driver of the truck, therefore, his case is on better footing
than the case of co-accused Kamil.
5. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in
the present matter since16.1.2026.
6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that actually co-accused Kamil is brother of the applicant
and both involved in the alleged commission of misappropriation but they could not
dispute the fact that co-accused Kamil has already been released on bail by this Court
and apart from the present case applicant is having no previous criminal history.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. However, there is allegation of misappropriation of bags of rice of the informant
against the applicant and co-accused Kamil but as per prosecution applicant was
BAIL No. 9636 of 2026
2
driver of the truck and co-accused Kamil was the owner of the truck and co-accused
Kamil has already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
9. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter
since16.1.2026 i.e. for last three and half months.
10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Rihan, 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 the court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his
personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty
to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in
by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
May 7, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…