Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41128

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2178 of 2025

Applicant :- Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raman Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Pandey, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 267 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 105, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333 BNS, Police StationWalterganj, District- Basti, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.12.2024 against applicant and five others and according to FIR, on 16.12.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, applicant and other accused persons made assault through kick and fist and in the morning, informant found that her father-in-law has died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that totally on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that as per the FIR, due to assault made by applicant and others, deceased died but postmortem report of the deceased completely belies the allegations levelled in the FIR.

¶10

He further submitted that, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he did not sustain any visible injury and his cause of death could not be ascertained and his viscera was preserved. He further submitted that, however, till date, viscera report of the deceased is not on record but even if, in the viscera report, it would have been found that deceased died due to consumption of poison then also it cannot be said that applicant is responsible for his death as there is no allegation that applicant administered any poison to him.

¶11

He further submitted that along with the applicant, co-accused Dileep and Alok were also made accused in the present matter and when they challenged the FIR of the present case before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2406 of 2025 then on 10.02.2025 Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay their arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C./193(2) B.N.S.S. He further submitted that as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is exactly at par with co-accused Dileep and Alok.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.12.2024.

¶13

Par contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

However, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others including co-accused Dileep and Alok, deceased died but from perusal of the post-mortem report, it reflects that he did not sustain any visible injury and his cause of death could not be ascertained and his viscera was preserved.

¶16

Considering the nature of allegations, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if, in the viscera report poison is found then also applicant cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased as there is no allegation that applicant administered any poison to the deceased.

¶17

Further, arrest of co-accused Dileep and Alok, who were named in the FIR along with applicant, has been stated by Division Bench of this Court till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C./193(2) B.N.S.S.

¶18

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.12.2024.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶27

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 KK Patel

¶28

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary 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

Ram Naresh Sahu vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Hussain vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Mishra vs State of U.P.

Santosh Pal vs State of U.P.

Niharika Singh Alias Niharika Das vs State of U.P. and Another