Allowed¶18

Prince v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2025BAIL/14119/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; Allahabad High Court; Case Crime No.66 of 2025, Sections 110 & 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Deogaon, District Azamgarh; general role of assault; injured's Section 180 BNSS statement; co-accused Aryan (steel rod); no criminal history; custody since 24.02.2025; personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed; Krishan Pahal, J.; September 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Prince on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verification of sureties and conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on dates fixed. ¶18

Prince vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Prince should be released on bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2025 under Sections 110, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Deogaon, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Court's answer

Taking into account that only a general role of assault was assigned to the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court prima facie held that the applicant made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified before release), subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Key takeaways

Observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) allowed the bail application of Prince in Case Crime No.66 of 2025 under Sections 110, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Deogaon, District-Azamgarh. As per the injured's statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the applicant's role was confined to slapping the injured while co-accused Aryan was said to have assaulted with a steel rod; only a general role of assault was attributed to the applicant, who had no criminal history and was in custody since 24.02.2025. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court prima facie found a case for bail and released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court); breach to be a ground for cancellation; observations not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14119 of 2025

Prince

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

		.....O	pposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Singh	Kumar Pathak, Chandra	Pratap
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 67

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2025, under Sections 110, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Deogaon, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the statement of the injured person recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the role assigned to the applicant is only of slapping the injured while the co-accused person Aryan is stated to have assaulted the injured with a steel rod. Only general role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the main accused person Naveen. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into

¶16

BAIL No. 14119 of 2025

¶17

¶18

consideration the fact that only general role of assault has been assigned to the accused person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Prince , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

September 18, 2025 Karan

¶26

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prince v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince v. State of U.P.

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

Anmol @ Shastri vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Viraj Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit vs State of U.P.

Dayanand Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Sunny Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banti Kuamr vs State of U.P. and 3 Others