Allowed

Badal @ Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025BAIL/37006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving alleged abetment of suicide. The court noted a belated FIR, insufficient evidence for the offence, and lack of apprehension regarding tampering or intimidation, making immediate release appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Releases applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in court, not tampering with evidence, and not pressuring witnesses.

Badal @ Amit vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37006 of 2025

Badal @ Amit

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Sections 108, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Barsana, District Mathura during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.06.2025. The postmortem was conducted on 12.06.2025. The first information report was lodged on 15.06.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 16.06.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said

¶11

BAIL No. 37006 of 2025

¶12

¶13

liberty.

¶14

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Badal @ Amit, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶17

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶18

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶19

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

October 28, 2025 SKT/-

¶22

(Vivek Varma,J.)

¶23

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

Badal @ Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badal @ Amit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Alias Anurag vs State of U.P.

Abhay Verma vs State of U.P.

Sunil Prasad vs State of U.P.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P.

Lalit and Another vs State of U.P. and Another