Utkarsh Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29931 of 2025

Utkarsh

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar, Jai Prakash Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 646 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 352, 115(2), 190, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co-accused person are stated to have committed the murder of son of the informant and at the directions of the applicant, the co-accused person-Ram Karan, the driver of the said loader is stated to have crushed the son of the informant on 27.12.2024 at about 9.30 AM.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is cross version to the incident as the relative of the driver of the loader had instituted an FIR no. 647 of 2024 on 28.12.2024 at about 6:49 PM. There being cross version at this point of time, cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. A case of accidental injury has been converted into culpable homicide and as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

¶12

BAIL No. 29931 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that two persons are stated to have sustained injuries from the side of the applicant also, although the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence and he is simply the owner of the loader and has been made an accused on the basis of said ownership. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶16

In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501 , the Supreme Court has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR and there was a cross version of the incident and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Utkarsh who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

BAIL No. 29931 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶27

September 9, 2025

¶28

#Vik/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Utkarsh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utkarsh 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