The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of grave allegations when the prosecution lacks tangible evidence and relies on inadmissible confessions. In a case marked by multiple false FIRs and no recovery of stolen property, the Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing procedural fairness and the absence of prima facie guilt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sudama Diwakar @ Keshav, was named as an accused in Case Crime No. 69 of 2026, registered at Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, under Sections 309(6), 351(3), 115(2), 117(2), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR alleged robbery committed against the first informant on 27.01.2026. The applicant was apprehended on 09.02.2026, along with other co-accused, based on an alleged confessional statement recorded by the police.
Key Facts
- The alleged offence occurred on 27.01.2026
- The applicant was arrested on 09.02.2026
- No recovery of stolen money or the alleged mobile phone was effected
- The confessional statement recorded by police is not admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, as incorporated by reference in BNS
- On the same day as the arrest (09.02.2026), six other FIRs were lodged against the applicant in unrelated cases, all alleging similar offences
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.02.2026
- The charge-sheet has been filed, and investigation is concluded
- The applicant is currently on bail in all six other cases
- The applicant’s criminal history, as detailed in paragraph 13 of the bail application, shows no prior conviction
Procedural History
- 27.01.2026: Alleged robbery incident
- 08.02.2026: Applicant taken into custody
- 09.02.2026: Arrest made; six additional FIRs registered
- Before 09.06.2026: Charge-sheet filed; investigation closed
- 09.06.2026: Present bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated. His counsel argues that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons initially, and the applicant was named only after an illegal confessional statement. No physical evidence links him to the crime. The applicant has no motive, no prior criminal record, and is not a flight risk.
The State opposes bail, asserting that the offence under BNS is grave and that the applicant poses a risk to public order.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail with reasonable conditions, arguing that his continued incarceration is unjustified given the lack of evidence, the inadmissibility of the confession, and the fact that he is already on bail in six other cases.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) where no recovery has been made, the sole incriminating evidence is an inadmissible police confession, and the accused is already on bail in multiple similar cases filed on the same day.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception, and cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot override the right to liberty. He emphasized that the absence of recovery, the inadmissibility of the confessional statement under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the filing of six identical FIRs on the same day indicate a pattern of false implication. He submitted that the applicant has no history of absconding, is employed, and will cooperate with trial.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the offences under BNS are serious and involve violence, and that the applicant’s continued detention is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence. He argued that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not entitle the accused to bail, and that the nature of the allegations warrants caution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the FIR and the procedural posture of the case. It noted that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, and the applicant was named only after a police-recorded statement. The Court observed that confessional statements made to police are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and this principle continues to apply under the BNS regime. The Court further noted that no stolen property or mobile phone was recovered, and there was no independent corroboration of the allegations.
"The fact that six similar cases were registered against the applicant on the same day raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations and suggests a possible misuse of process."
The Court held that the applicant’s continued detention without substantial evidence, in the face of his cooperation with the investigation and his existing bail in other cases, was not justified. The Court emphasized that the charge-sheet being filed does not equate to a finding of guilt, and that the applicant’s liberty must be preserved unless there is a clear risk of flight or tampering.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the gravity of the offence alone warranted denial of bail, citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to reaffirm that gravity of offence cannot be the sole ground for refusing bail.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted bail to Sudama Diwakar @ Keshav on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount. The applicant must comply with six conditions, including not committing similar offences, not tampering with evidence, appearing before the Trial Court on all dates, and not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present. In case of breach, bail may be cancelled. The applicant must appear personally on dates for opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 351 BNS).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inadmissible Confessions Cannot Sustain Denial of Bail
- Practitioners must immediately challenge police confessions in bail hearings under BNS, as they are legally inadmissible
- Courts must disregard such statements when evaluating the prima facie case
- This judgment reinforces that no conviction can rest on police confession alone, and the same standard applies to bail determinations
Multiple Similar FIRs Indicate Possible Abuse of Process
- Filing of multiple FIRs against the same accused on the same day for similar offences is now a red flag for courts
- Such patterns can be raised to argue lack of credible evidence and potential harassment
- Defence counsel should compile and present all related cases to demonstrate systemic misuse
Bail Is Not Dependent on Charge-Sheet Filing
- The filing of a charge-sheet does not automatically negate the right to bail
- Courts must assess the strength of evidence, not merely the stage of proceedings
- This judgment clarifies that bail eligibility is determined by the merits of the case, not procedural milestones
