Allowed¶18

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026BAIL/2039/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail order by Santosh Rai, J.; B.N.S. Sections 3(5), 109(1); Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, P.S. Mohana, Siddharthnagar; firing on police personnel, no-injury case; recovery memo without independent witness; parity with co-accused Irshad (bail dated 5.1.2026, Bail No. 43218 of 2025); charge-sheet filed 30.6.2025; custody since 11.7.2025; Manish Sisodia 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677; K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; Article 21; conditional bail; cancellation on breach.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rahul enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025 on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence, presence before the trial court, and verification of identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties.

Rahul vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether accused-applicant Rahul should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025 under Sections 3(5), 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station Mohana, District Siddharthnagar.

¶11

Court's answer

Applicant Rahul is to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted on the considerations that no police personnel sustained any injury (a no-injury case) and that no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of the recovery memo.

¶18

Key takeaways

In view of parity with co-accused Irshad (similar role, already enlarged on bail) and submission of the charge-sheet, the Court found no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.ratio¶18
Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; shall furnish an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, and personally on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement of the accused; and in case of misuse of liberty the trial court shall initiate proceedings strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - granted. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Santosh Rai, J.) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2039 of 2026 and enlarged accused-applicant Rahul on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025 under Sections 3(5), 109(1) B.N.S., P.S. Mohana, District Siddharthnagar, where the FIR alleged that three accused including the applicant opened firing upon police personnel with no one sustaining injury. Grounds: no-injury case; no independent and reliable witness at preparation of the recovery memo; parity with co-accused Irshad having similar role already enlarged on bail vide order dated 5.1.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43218 of 2025; charge-sheet submitted 30.6.2025; applicant in jail since 11.7.2025; larger mandate of Article 21; reliance on paragraph 53 of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. Bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; breach a ground for cancellation by trial court; no opinion expressed on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2039 of 2026

Rahul

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 70

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sewak Ram Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶11

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Rahul seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.61 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station Mohana, District Siddharthnagar.

¶12

Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR three accused persons including the applicant have opened firing upon police personnel but no one has sustained any injury in this case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.7.2025. It is submitted that that the present FIR has been registered by Anoop Kumar Mishra, SHO, Mohana. It is further submitted that this is no injury case in which no police personnel have sustained any injury by applicant and other co-accused persons, whereas co-accused Irshad has himself sustained injury in the police firing. It is argued that false recovery has been shown by the police from the possession of applicant and and other co-accused persons but no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of applicant. It is further argued that co-accused

¶14

BAIL No. 2039 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Irshad having similar role has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43218 of 2025 and parity is sought in the matter. It is next argued that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that as per the instructions received, charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 30.6.2025.

¶18

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the fact that no police personnel have sustained any injury; this is no injury case; no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo, co-accused Irshad having similar role has already been enlarged on bail, charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses, he is languishing in jail since 11.7.2025, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are

¶21

BAIL No. 2039 of 2026

¶22

¶23

present in Court.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶26

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶28

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

March 18, 2026 RA

¶30

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rampati Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Shubham vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Singh Gurjar vs State of U.P.

Kamlawati Devi vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar @ Raja Sahu vs State of U.P.

Aryan vs State of U.P.