Allowed¶14

Balram Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2025BAIL/3894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bail application allowed Balram Pal Hardoi Sandi Case Crime 87 of 2025 Section 110 BNS Section 25(9) Arms Act celebratory gun firing Tilak ceremony Subham Rajkumar injuries criminal history explained Rejoinder Affidavit no intention to cause injury invitee social function one day admission custody since 03.04.2025 personal bond two reliable sureties conditions Section 269 BNS Section 84 BNSS Section 209 BNS Karunesh Singh Pawar Lucknow Bench 21.7.2025

What did the court decide?

Release on bail of applicant Balram Pal in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, subject to a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, with six enumerated conditions. ¶14

Balram Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Balram Pal, in custody since 03.04.2025 in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025 (Section 110 BNS and Section 25(9) Arms Act), Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi, should be released on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

On due consideration, the court took into account that the criminal history of the applicant had been explained in paragraph 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit and that, prima facie, there appeared to be no intention on the part of the applicant to cause injury.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The court noted that the incident occurred during a social function where the applicant appears to have been an invitee, and that the medical report showed the injured remained admitted for only one day.

¶13

Key takeaways

Taking into account that the applicant had been in jail since 03.04.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found it to be a fit case for granting bail.ratio¶13
The bail application was accordingly allowed: applicant Balram Pal is to be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, with conditions barring tampering with evidence, intimidation of prosecution witnesses and inducement/threat/promise, requiring an undertaking against seeking adjournments when witnesses are present and attendance on each date fixed (default attracting proceedings under Section 229-A IPC, now Section 269 BNS), misuse of bail liberty triggering issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) and, on failure to appear, initiation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS).ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3894 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), decided 21.7.2025 — accused-applicant Balram Pal, Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi, under Section 110 BNS and Section 25(9) Arms Act — alleged celebratory gun firing during the Tilak ceremony of Subham on 14.02.2025 in which Rajkumar sustained injuries — criminal history explained in paragraph 12 of Rejoinder Affidavit; prima facie no intention to cause injury; incident at a social function where applicant appears to have been an invitee; injured remained admitted for only one day; applicant in jail since 03.04.2025 — bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits, on personal bond and two reliable sureties, with conditions invoking Section 269 BNS, Section 84 BNSS and Section 209 BNS on default or misuse.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41536

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3894 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Balram Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.87 of 2025 under Section 110 BNS and Section 25(9) Arms Act, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that during the Tilak ceremony of one Subham on 14.02.2025, the applicant was involved in celebratory gun firing (harsh firing), during which one Rajkumar is said to have sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.04.2025 and has duly explained his criminal history in paragraph 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶11

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶12

On due consideration of the facts that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 12 of the Rejoinder Affidavit; prima facie, there appears to be no intention on the part of the applicant to cause injury; the incident occurred

¶13

during a social function where the applicant appears to have been an invitee; the medical report of the injured shows that he remained admitted for only one day; the applicant has been in jail since 03.04.2025; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Balram Pal be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶21

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶22

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the 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 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶23

Order Date :- 21.7.2025

¶24

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balram Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home 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

Ajay Kumar Vs U.O.I. Thru Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Lko. Zonal Unit

Siddharth Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pulli @ Puttilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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