Allowed¶18

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025BAIL/1013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; murder; Section 302 IPC; FIR No. 159 of 2021; P.S. Husainganj; District Lucknow; incident dated 29.07.2021; Belecha; body produced as unknown body; statement-based linkage; prolonged pre-trial detention of more than four years; custody since 01.08.2021; only 2 of 20 witnesses examined; no criminal antecedents; personal bond with two sureties; conditions imposed; single judge Pankaj Bhatia; decided November 17, 2025; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1013 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Guddu to be released on bail in FIR No. 159 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 20-22 (attendance at hearings; no similar offence; no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence). ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Guddu, accused under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 159 of 2021 (P.S. Husainganj, District Lucknow), is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering that the applicant was linked with the offence based upon a statement whereas the body was produced as an unknown body, that only 2 out of 20 witnesses have been examined so that there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, the pre-trial detention of more than four years, and the absence of criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: undertaking to attend hearings, not committing any similar offence, and not inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia, J. - Bail allowed under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 159 of 2021, P.S. Husainganj, District Lucknow. Applicant was linked to the offence on a statement-based allegation that he hit the deceased with a Belecha, while the body had been produced as an unknown body; only 2 of 20 witnesses examined; applicant in custody since 01.08.2021 (over four years) with no criminal antecedents. Held entitled to bail; released on personal bond with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of attendance, abstention from similar offences, and non-tampering with evidence/witnesses.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1013 of 2025

Guddu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Riyaz Ahmad, Hemant Kumar Osama Syed	Pandey,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.159 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Husainganj, District Lucknow.

¶12

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that information was received by the informant that on 29.07.2021 brother of the informant was killed. Subsequently, the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the statement that on the date of the incident, it was seen that the applicant and the deceased were having a fight because of which the applicant allegedly hit him with a Belecha which resulted in death.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the fact that the body in question was produced as an unknown body. It is further argued that the applicant is in custody since 01.08.2021 and has no criminal antecedents. It is further argued that only 2 witnesses out of total 20 witnesses have been examined.

¶14

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶15

6. Considering the fact that the applicant was linked with the offence based upon the statement whereas body was produced as an unknown body coupled with the fact that only 2 out of 20 witnesses have been examined,

¶16

BAIL No. 1013 of 2025

¶17

¶18

thus, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, as such, in view of the pre-trial detention suffered by the applicant of more than four years and the applicant having no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

¶19

7. Let the applicant Guddu be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(c) 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.

¶23

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶24

November 17, 2025

¶25

nishant

¶26

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ran Vijay Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Srinath (Major B.C.) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home .and Others

Kailash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Asharfee Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Bablu Vs Sttae of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others