Dilkhush Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14462 of 2026

Dilkhush Chaudhary .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anmol, Umang Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prem Narayan Tiwari Court No. - 64

¶3

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri P.N. Tiwari, counsel for the informant. Perused the record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 333 B.N.S., Police Station- Khoda, District- Ghazibad during pendency of the trial.

¶6

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 incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.8.2025 at 7.30 a.m., whereas the first information report came to be lodged on 26.8.2026, under Sections 351(2), 352, 333, 118(1) B.N.S. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation, sections 109(1) and 3(5) B.N.S. were also added. Placing reliance upon the medical report of the injured, it is contended that the medical examination of the injured was conducted on 24.8.2025 at 7.05 a.m., i.e. prior to the alleged time

¶7

BAIL No. 14462 of 2026

¶8

2

¶9

of occurrence. The discrepancy between the prosecution version and the medical evidence creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story. It is next contended that the name of the applicant was surfaced subsequently in the statements of the informant and injured. In the said statements, the only role assigned to the applicant is that of catching hold. The said statement is an after thought. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

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 inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was surfaced subsequently in the statements of the informant and injured. In the said statements, the only role assigned to the applicant is that of catching hold. The discrepancy between the prosecution version and the medical evidence creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than five 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 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.

¶12

Let the applicant, Dilkhush Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶13

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

BAIL No. 14462 of 2026

¶15

3

¶16

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶17

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18