Allowed

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025BAIL/34250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheAllahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed under sections 103(1) 115(2) 352 BNS. The court noted general allegations FIR delay and Co-accused confinement of the son of the deceased. Grounds for bail include presumption of innocence and Article 21 right to life.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail final two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34250 of 2025

¶3

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag

¶4

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Krishna Srivastava	Sharma,	Sumit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.291 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons, namely, Harsh Vardhan Pandey and Bharat Sarkar, is stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the son of the informant armed with lathi and danda on 23.07.2025 at about 2:25 p.m.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR. Subsequently the informant has stated that all the accused person assaulted his son, but has stated that co-accused person Harsh Vardhan Pandey had caused injury to the head of his son, which led to his death.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there are only

¶13

BAIL No. 34250 of 2025

¶14

¶15

two injuries sustained by the deceased person. One is on the leg and other is on the cranium. There are three accused persons in the instant case, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV footage, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶17

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶18

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶19

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶20

Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶21

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating

¶22

BAIL No. 34250 of 2025

¶23

¶24

offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶25

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 institution of FIR and there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Deepak Savita Alias Chirag , 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶33

October 14, 2025

¶34

(Ravi Kant)

¶35

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

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases