Sudheer vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38613 of 2025

¶3

Sudheer

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj	Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Neeraj Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Sudheer , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 320 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 110, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 07.06.2025 under Sections 115(2), 110, 351(2) B.N.S. by Ashu against the applicant and 02 other accused alleging therein that on 04.06.2025 his father Rajesh Kumar was working in his field in the night wherein the accused persons reached there and demanded money for liquor which was refused by him and then all the 03 accused assaulted him due to which he received injury and became unconscious. On the shouts his brother Ajay reached the place of occurrence and saw the incident. His brother then raised a shout on which other persons also reached there. His father was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition from where he was referred to higher centre where he is under treatment. His report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

BAIL No. 38613 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that three persons namely Lokesh, Sandeep and Sudheer (the present applicant) have been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased Rajesh Kumar but the deceased was found to have received two injuries on his person. The injury no.1 was opined by the doctor to be simple in nature whereas the injury no.2 was the fatal injury. The cause of death was opined as cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force trauma to head, however clotted blood is preserved to rule out any associated alcohol intoxication. It is submitted that the author of the said fatal injury is not known. It is submitted that Rajesh Kumar died on 10.06.2025 at about 2.30 am while being under treatment in G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi and then Section 105 B.N.S. has been added in the present matter. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 03 days. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.06.2025.

¶14

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that common & general role has been assigned to the applicant and 02 other accused of assault upon the deceased Rajesh Kumar. The injury no.2 received by him proved fatal. The author of the said injury is not known.

¶16

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Sudheer , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

BAIL No. 38613 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶25

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶26

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶27

The bail application is allowed .

¶28

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶29

November 19, 2025 AS Rathore

¶30

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudheer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Acchu vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P. at Lucknow

Smt. Sushila vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saleem Alias Sajid Ali vs State of U.P.