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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Ramakant in FIR No. 304 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (a) undertaking to attend hearings; (b) not committing any offence similar to that of which he is accused or suspected; and (c) not making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police or tamper with the evidence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ramakant, booked in FIR No. 304 of 2024 (Sections 191(2), 103(1), 333 BNS) on allegations that the co-accused throttled the victim to death after a land-dispute fight, is entitled to be enlarged on bail, given the inconsistencies between the inquest-stage and subsequent witness statements, the absence of any specific allegation against the accused, and his clean antecedents.

Court's answer

In deciding the bail application, the Court took into account the inconsistencies between the two statements - one recorded during inquest proceedings and the other subsequent thereto.

Ratio / Principle

The Court further took into account that no specific allegation had been levelled against any of the accused.

Key takeaways

As the applicant had no criminal antecedents and, coupled with the foregoing considerations, the Court found the applicant entitled to be enlarged on bail and allowed the application.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 12 (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), October 27, 2025 - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12893 of 2024 (Ramakant v. State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.): ALLOWED. Applicant sought bail in FIR No. 304 of 2024, P.S. Unchahar, Distt. Raebareli, under Sections 191(2), 103(1) and 333 BNS, concerning a land-dispute fight of 03.08.2024 after which the informant saw all the co-accused throttle the victim to death at about 10 PM; FIR lodged 04.08.2024 at about 16:50 hours. Grant rested on: (i) inconsistencies between the statements of panchnama signatories Sursati and Rahul, who at the inquest stated they could not ascertain the cause of death, and their subsequent statements levelling allegations against all the co-accused; (ii) absence of any specific allegation against any accused; and (iii) the applicant having no criminal antecedent (custody since 20.09.2024). Applicant directed to be released on a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions of attending hearings, committing no similar offence, and refraining from inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12893 of 2024

Ramakant

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahesh Kumar Sharma

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

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

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.304 of 2024, under Section 191(2), 103(1), 333 BNS, P.S. Unchahar, District Raebareli.

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that on account of a land dispute, a dispute had occurred in between the parties and on 03.08.2024 a fight had taken place. Subsequently, on the same date at about 10 PM, the informant had seen that all the co-accused had taken the victim and had throttled him to death. FIR in question lodged on 04.08.2024 at about 16:50 hours.

4. In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the Panchnama in which two of the signatories were Sursati and Rahul. At the time of inquest, they had stated that they could not ascertain the cause of death. Subsequently, in the statement recorded by the said two witnesses, allegations were levelled against all the co-accused of having caused the offence in question. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 20.09.2024.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the inconsistencies in the two statements - one recorded during inquest proceedings and other subsequent thereof - coupled with the fact that no specific allegation has been levelled against any of the accused

BAIL No. 12893 of 2024

2

and the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

7. Let the applicant Ramakant 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:

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

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

(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.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

October 27, 2025

nishant

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