Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025/6487/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 61(2), 103(1) and 351(2) of the BNS for an alleged murder by tractor. Counsel argued CCTV footage and post-mortem contradicted FIR allegations. The court found no related criminal antecedents and allowed bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Raj Jaiswal released on bail on personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Raj Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6487 of 2025

Raj Jaiswal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vinay Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Dixit, Laxmi Shanker Goswami, Pratul Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Ayush Pratap Singh, Dhirendra Pratap Singh

¶9

Court No. - 12

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶13

3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.91 of 2025, under sections 61(2), 103(1), 351(2), BNS, P.S. Indira Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that son of informant was taken by the applicant and subsequently intoxication was given and then he was killed. When the informant reached the spot he found that head of his son was bleeding and there was injury marks on his chest also. Subsequently an information was received that son of the informant was administered alcohol and subsequently he was killed with a tractor by the applicant and his brother in law who according to the informant was a sand mafia. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the site plan which states that the incident had taken place in almost on the middle of the road which is a kachha road. My attention is also drawn to the statement of one of the eye witness Shubham who stated that on the date of incident in between 7:30 to 8 PM when he was going for agricultural

¶15

BAIL No. 6487 of 2025

¶16

¶17

work he see saw a tractor standing alongwith mud loaded on the trolley and the applicant and his brother in law were fighting the deceased. Subsequently brother in law sat on the tractor and applicant pushed the deceased towards the tractor which resulted in his death. Learned counsel for the applicant states that in the CCTV footage as has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit it is clear that at around 7:30 the applicant had gone to drop child to school. It is evident from CCTV footage and thus the allegations are highly improbable. He also draws my attention to the statement of one of person Sumit who had stated that it was the applicant who had informed that the deceased had died on account of tractor accident. Cause of death as per post mortem report suggest the death on account of injuries caused by accident. Apart from the statement of the eye witness it is stated that the applicant had forced the deceased towards tractor which was being driven by the brother in law. The CCTV footage filed by the applicant does not indicate any such incident involving the applicant or his brother in law. In the post mortem report no alcohol was found from the deceased.

¶18

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶19

6. Considering the FIR allegations not being corroborated by the applicant who has explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 11 of the bail application and the other criminal history disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the State are not related offence, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 23.5.2025 is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶20

7. Let the applicant Raj Jaiswal be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶22

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶23

¶24

BAIL No. 6487 of 2025

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

8. However, the trial shall be concluded expeditiously.

¶28

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶29

December 9, 2025

¶30

J. K. Dinkar

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Ramakant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Jang Bahadur Singh @ Jangi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Sahaj and Another Vs State Pf U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Nand Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sushil Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.