Ravindraraja @ Ganu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ravindraraja @ Ganu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: applicant Ravindraraja @ Ganu to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on conditions that he (i) shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, (ii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witness, and (iii) shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court; on breach of any condition the prosecution may move for cancellation of bail before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ravindraraja @ Ganu, involved in Case Crime No. 196 of 2024 under Sections 309(4), 317 B.N.S., is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

Court's answer

Prima facie the applicant was not named in the first information report; he was arrested on an informer's information along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot; there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery; apart from the confessional statement made in police custody there is no corroborative evidence against him; the co-accused has already been granted bail; the applicant has remained confined for more than one year seven months with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses was brought to the fore by the State — therefore, without commenting on the merits, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize the prosecution witness, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

Key takeaways

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Sections 309(4), 317 B.N.S., Case Crime No. 196 of 2024, P.S. Bar, District Lalitpur (Allahabad High Court, Vivek Varma, J., 05.05.2026). Applicant not named in the FIR and arrested on an informer's information along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot; alleged recovery of two pairs of anklet, white-metal coins and Rs. 2450/- unsupported by any independent witness; no evidence against the applicant beyond a confessional statement made in police custody; co-accused already granted bail (order dated 10.2.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4092 of 2025); applicant in custody since 15.9.2024, i.e., over one year seven months, with no hope of early conclusion of trial and no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses raised by the State. Held, without commenting on merits, that the applicant was entitled to bail; released on personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering, non-pressure on witnesses and appearance on all trial dates, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3612 of 2026

Ravindraraja @ Ganu

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 196 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 317 B.N.S., Police Station- Bar, District- Lalitpur during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of two pairs of anklet, coins of white metal and Indian currency of Rs.2450/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement while in police custody, at this there is no corroborative evidence against the applicant. Co-accused Ajay Rajpoot has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 10.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4092 of 2025 (Ajay Rajpoot vs. State of U.P.). The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.9.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this

BAIL No. 3612 of 2026

2

Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Ajay Rajpoot. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence against the applicant. Co-accused Ajay Rajpoot has been granted bail by this court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year seven 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.

Let the applicant, Ravindraraja @ Ganu 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:

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

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 5, 2026

S.S.

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad