Allowed

Ghanshyam and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2025BAIL/17277/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought by three accused in a case of fatal beating of the informant's husband, with general allegations and no specific role assigned to any applicant. The court found a prima facie case for bail without commenting on merits and released them on personal bond with two sureties each.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Ghanshyam, Ravindra and Ravi released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, or absence at trial.

Ghanshyam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100718

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17277 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ghanshyam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Purshottam Maurya, learned A.G.A. representing the State respondents.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants, Ghanshyam, Ravindra and Ravi, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 296 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 110, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) B.N.S., Police Station-Kalwari, District-Basti.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the accused-applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and are languishing in jail since 22.12.2024. First Information report has been lodged by the informant with the allegation that on the date of incident all the applicants and one Mangal have severely beaten the husband of the first informant, namely Subhash, by Lathi Danda and when the mother in law of the first informant tried to save the deceased they severely beat her also. Thereafter both the injured were taken to the District Hospital, where the husband of the applicant was declared dead and treatment of the mother in law was going on in District Hospital. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that in the Post Mortem Report it is mentioned that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of shock and hemorrhage due to anti mortem head injury. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from the post mortem report it is clear that the injury, sustained on the head of the deceased, was fatal in nature but who is the author of the said injury is not clear. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants or co-accused. Injuries sustained by the mother in law of the first informant are general in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 have criminal history of one case and two cases, in which they have been granted bail, whereas, the applicant no. 3 has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail; hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the fact that no specific role has been assigned to any of the applicants.

¶11

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the accused-applicants, Ghanshyam, Ravindra and Ravi , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

¶17

The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Deepak/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Vakeel Khan vs State of U.P.

Akash Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sher Singh vs State of U.P.

Shadab vs State of U.P.

Chhotaie Yadav vs State of U.P.

Abdul Majid vs State of U.P.