Mukesh Verma vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mukesh Verma vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the bail application was rejected; the applicant remains in custody, with a direction to the trial court to decide the case expeditiously if there is no legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, facing trial in S.T. No. 241 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 265 of 2024, Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S.) for the murder of the sister of the informant and her three children, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the applicant's house and that it is a gruesome murder of three children and their mother, this is not a fit case for grant of bail; the bail application is devoid of merits and is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The aforesaid case pending before the trial court is directed to be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent Supreme Court judgments in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

Key takeaways

The observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — refusal. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24943 of 2025 (Mukesh Verma v. State of U.P.), decided October 28, 2025: bail application in S.T. No. 241 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 265 of 2024, Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah) rejected — applicant accused of committing the murder of the sister of the informant and her three children in the night of 11.11.2024. The court, taking into consideration that the deceased had expired within the precincts of the applicant's house and that it was a gruesome murder of three children and their mother, found it not a fit case for grant of bail and rejected the application as devoid of merits. Trial court directed to decide the case expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment; observations confined to bail-stage facts, to have no bearing on trial merits. Applicant in jail since 23.11.2024.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24943 of 2025

Mukesh Verma

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pankaj Narayan	Kumar Singh	Mishra,	Satyendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.241 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed murder of the sister of the informant and her three children in the night of 11.11.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed as there is no time of offence mentioned in it. The allegations are per se false and the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as the deceased had expired

BAIL No. 24943 of 2025

2

within the precincts of house of the applicant. It is a gruesome murder of three children and their mother, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and it is a gruesome murder of three children and their mother, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

October 28, 2025

Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad