Allahabad High Court
ANILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that, given the belated FIR, lack of credible evidence of intent, and no risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anil in a criminal case under sections 115(2), 352 and 105 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, pointing out a four‑day delay in lodging the FIR and reliance on independent witnesses who said the incident was a spontaneous altercation after both parties consumed liquor. The prosecution could not produce any corroborative evidence of Anil's knowledge or intention to commit the offence, nor could it show a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation or flight. The court noted that Anil had been in custody for over a year and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Consequently, the court found no reasonable apprehension against granting bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution's case and warrants bail.
- Whether there is sufficient evidence of the applicant's knowledge or intent to justify continued detention.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 105, 115(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- false implication
- intent
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9950 of 2026
Anil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material
available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2026, under Sections 115(2),
352, 105 of B.N.S., Police Station- Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad,
during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
06.08.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 10.8.2025.
The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution
case. Placing reliance upon the statements of the independent witnesses
namely, Pravesh Kumar and Sudhakar Yadav it is contended that the
applicant and the deceased were friends and there was no enmity between
them. On the date of incident both had consumed liquor. The incident had
occurred at the spur of the moment without any premeditation. The applicant
neither had the requisite knowledge nor any intention to commit the alleged
offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant
with the offence. Criminal antecedents of the applicant has been explained in
paragraph-19 to the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since
12.8.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
BAIL No. 9950 of 2026
2
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the statements of the independent witnesses namely,
Pravesh Kumar and Sudhakar Yadav, on the date of incident the applicant
and the deceased consumed liquor and the incident had occurred at the spur
of moment without any premeditation. At this stage, there is no credible
evidence to establish that the applicant had the requisite knowledge or
intention to commit the alleged offence. Moreover, the applicant has
remained confined for more than one year and a month 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Anil, 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.
September 30, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…