Allowed

Karan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2025BAIL/1684/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three applicants sought regular bail for an alleged group assault on a complainant demanding wages, in which one person later died of a head injury. With general roles attributed to all accused, unclear attribution of the fatal injury, custody since October 2024 and the charge sheet filed, the court enlarged them on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Karan, Dhirendra and Arjun released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Karan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46526

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1684 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Karan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Verma,Kunwer Dhananjay Singh,Praveen Kumar Pandey,Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the date of incident at around 9:30 p.m., the complainant went to demand his wages from the named accused persons. At that point, the accused allegedly started hurling abuses and physically assaulted the complainant. When his brother Satish, Harish and cousin Sujeet came to rescue, they were also beaten by the accused.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of six days. It is further submitted that in the statement of the deceased (during his lifetime), a general role has been attributed to all the four accused persons without any specific overt act.

¶9

4. Referring to the postmortem report, learned counsel submits that the deceased, Ajeet Kumar, sustained two ante-mortem injuries :-

¶10

1. A contused swelling of size 12 cm x 9 cm present at mid occipital region of skull on opening underneath bone found fractured and subdural haematoma present all over brain.

¶11

2. An abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm present on right arm, 4 cm below shoulder joint.

¶12

5. It is submitted that the cause of death is the ante-mortem head injury, i.e, Injury No.1. However, the prosecution case does not clearly specify who inflicted the fatal injury.

¶13

6. It is also submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 have no criminal antecedents, while applicant No.3 has explained the

¶14

criminal history of one case in the bail application. The injured witnesses have also made general allegations against all accused without attributing specific roles to the applicants.

¶15

7. It is further submitted that co-accused Jiyalal has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13000 of 2024, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the present application. The applicants are in jail since 22.10.2024.

¶16

8. It is submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submits that co-accused Jiyalal was not named in the F.I.R., and therefore, the case of the present applicants is not one of parity. It is contended that correct facts were not placed before the Co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to the said coaccused. Hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶18

10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, including the general nature of the allegations made by the deceased during his lifetime, the statements of the two injured witnesses, the nature of antemortem injuries, and the fact that the applicants have been in custody since 22.10.2024, and further, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and it is not prima facie clear from the prosecution case as to who caused the fatal injury, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.

¶19

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

12. Let the applicants No.1 to 3, namely, Karan, Dhirendra and Arjun involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 256/2024, U/S115(2), 352, 324(4), 333, 3(5), 191(2), 105 B.N.S, P.S-. Jagatpur, District - Raebareli be released on bail on their 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶27

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Shubhankar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Karan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan and 2 Others 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

Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vipul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Nisar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Karan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sajan @ Ram Sanehi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pravesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.