Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025/2949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for Raj Kumar, accused in a murder case under IPC Sections 304, 504, and 506. Relying on the parity principle since the co-accused was already granted bail, and noting the applicant's clean record and confinement, the court enlarged him on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, and appearance in court.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45855

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2949 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled against the applicant and two other persons. During course of investigation, culpability of the present applicant has been found, therefore, charge-sheet has been filed against him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if the prosecution story is conceded on its face value, no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. The witnesses have named the applicant and the co-accused Vipin Kumar, but all the aforesaid statements are based on suspicion. He next submits that the informant, PW-1 has levelled general allegations against the applicant as well as the co-accused Vipin Kumar. The said co-accused Vipin Kumar has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 1.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7132 of 2024. Hence, the present applicant claims parity.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.3.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the co-accused Vipin Kumar has already been granted bail; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 18.3.2024; charge-sheet has

¶13

already been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Raj Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 0044 of 2024, under Sections, 304, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Katka, District- Ambedkar Nagar 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) 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 present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Shravan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mubeen @ Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sudeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Avinash Srivsatava vs Registrar General, in the Honble Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Shiva vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy. Home