Dismissed¶9

Gopi Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2025BAIL/27449/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; neutral citation 2025:AHC:134788; Court No. 65; Justice Krishan Pahal; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION 27449 of 2025; Gopi Sharma v. State of U.P.; bail rejected; Case Crime No. 117 of 2025; Sections 103(1) & 351(2) BNS; Police Station Parasrampur; District Basti; murder/grievous hurt bail; nine injuries; antemortem head injury; shock and hemorrhage; FIR delay four hours; witnesses saw applicant running away; sole accused; custody since 25.04.2025; no criminal history; speedy/expeditious trial; Vinod Kumar 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain (2017) 5 SCC 702.

What did the court decide?

None; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. ¶9

Gopi Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Gopi Sharma, the sole accused in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) & 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Parasrampur, District Basti, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶3

Court's answer

Bail refused: considering the submissions and the facts that the applicant is the sole accused and the deceased sustained nine injuries in all, the court did not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail; the bail application was accordingly rejected.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Trial court directed that the pending case be decided expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down 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.

¶11

Key takeaways

Clarified that the observations in this order are limited to the facts brought in by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL REJECTED - Gopi Sharma, sole accused in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) & 351(2) of BNS, PS Parasrampur, District Basti (incident 24.04.2025; informant's father allegedly assaulted, succumbed to nine injuries - lacerated wound, contusions, abrasions; postmortem: death due to shock & hemorrhage as a result of antemortem head injury). Defence argued FIR delayed by about four hours without explanation and witnesses saw only the applicant running away. Held unfit for bail being sole accused with nine injuries on deceased; bail application rejected (Krishan Pahal, J., Allahabad High Court, 8.8.2025). Pending trial directed to be decided expeditiously per Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, absent legal impediment; observations expressly confined to bail-stage facts.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134788

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27449 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gopi Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Parasrampur, District - Basti, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the informant's father had called him and stated that he was being beaten up by the applicant, as such, the informant reached there and found the applicant assaulting his father, thereby caused grievous injuries to him and ran away from the place of occurrence on 24.04.2025 at about 07:00 PM. The informant rushed his father to the hospital whereby he succumbed to injuries on the way.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that the other witnesses have not seen the incident rather they have stated that they have seen the applicant running away near the scene of occurrence, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned counsel has next contended that the entire story has been cooked up by the informant. The applicant is languishing in

¶13

jail since 25.04.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are nine injuries sustained by the deceased person i.e. lacerated wound, contusions and abrasions which led to the death of the deceased person. The postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story as the cause of death of the deceased person was shock & hemorrhage as a result of antemortem head injury, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant is the sole accused in the instant case and the deceased sustained nine injuries in all, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶17

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date:- 8.8.2025 Siddhant

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopi Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases