Amit @ Sonu vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:105506
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person was not named in the first information report but was subsequently implicated through later statements of witnesses, and there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and no corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence at the stage of trial, the omission of the accused's name from the FIR casts serious doubts on the prosecution case such that bail may be granted despite the serious nature of the charges. Where an accused has remained in custody for more than four months following submission of the charge sheet with no reasonable prospect of early conclusion of the trial, and the prosecution has not demonstrated any apprehension that the accused would tamper with evidence, delay the trial, or intimidate witnesses, the accused is entitled to enlargement on bail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2026, under Sections 309(6), 351(3), 109(1), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested in Case Crime No. 02 of 2026, under Sections 27, 25, 3 Arms Act and Sections 317(2), 109, 106, 35(1) BNS, Police Station Alau, District Mainpuri and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. The alleged CCTV footage does not connect the applicant with the present offence. Reliance has also been placed on the subsequent statements of the informant, the injured Dilip and Smt. Divya to contend that the applicant was previously known to them and therefore, the omission of the name of the applicant in the FIR casts serious doubts on the prosecution case. False recovery of a country made pistol and Rs. 1,110/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 4 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.01.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily 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 applicant was not named in the first information report. He was arrested in another case and implicated in the present case. As per the subsequent statements of the informant, the injured Dilip and Smt. Divya, the applicant was previously known to them and therefore, the omission of the name of the applicant in the FIR casts serious doubts on the prosecution case. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of charge sheet 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 Amit @ Sonu, 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.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 7, 2026
Lbm/-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free