Narendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21254

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3152 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate First and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0297 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 B.N.S. registered at Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.09.2024 12:52 hours, stating that her brother, aged 48 years, had no wife and children and he used to stay away from family. He had gone to Ramganj market on 11.09.2024 and during the night some person killed him and threw the dead-body near a bridge on the canal. She got the information from some unnamed villagers in the morning and she found her brother's dead-body in the District Hospital.

¶10

The postmortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around the neck of the dead-body and cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 21 years. He has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the

¶12

present case.

¶13

Learned Additional Government Advocate First has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused- Kaushal Kumar. He has produced copies of relevant extract of case diary which show that in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., she reiterated the FIR version. Statement of the informant's husband was also recorded and he also reiterated the same version and an independent witnessVinod Kumar stated that he had come to know that the deceased had been killed by the co-accused Kaushal Kumar along with the applicant as he had declined to give his property to the applicant. Similar statements have been given by two other persons, Shailendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar. Learned A.G.A.-I further submitted that during investigation, independent witness Shailendra Kumar stated that the applicant had come to him and had confessed that he had killed the deceased alongwith co-accused persons.

¶14

The applicant in his custodial statement had confessed about his involvement in commission of the offence.

¶15

Co-accused Kaushal Kumar has been granted bail by means of an order dated 10.04.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3051 of 2025.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident occurred in the night of 11.09.2024 and the FIR has been lodged on 13.09.2024 at 12:52 hours, after the postmortem and last rites of the deceased had been conducted on 12.09.2024, and yet no person is named in the FIR; the informant and other family

¶17

members did not implicate the applicant or any other person and their statements were recorded by the investigating officer; it was on the basis of three independent persons that involvement of the applicant and co-accused- Kaushal Kumar came to light but all those three persons stated that they had acquired the information from some other person whose name had not been disclosed by any of the witnesses and also keeping in view the fact that investigation already stands concluded, the charge-sheet has been submitted on 24.10.2024, the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.09.2024 whereas the co-accused Kaushal Kumar has already been granted bail, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Narendra 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 -Amit K-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Narendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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

Saurabh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Shahban Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Koyali @ Rehana @ Khalikun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another