Raj Singh Chandel vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raj Singh Chandel vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Raj Singh Chandel on the ground of parity; release directed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before the release order, subject to conditions that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose role is stated to be identical to that of co-accused Satyam Singh Chandel who has already been enlarged on bail, is entitled to bail in Case Crime No.121 of 2025 on the ground of parity, notwithstanding the A.G.A.'s objection regarding recovery of a CMP at the pointing out of co-accused persons.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgments of this Court (Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P.) and the Supreme Court (Paras Ram Vishnoi; Satender Kumar Antil), the applicant has made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity; the A.G.A. did not dispute the factual aspect of parity despite objecting on recovery of a CMP.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Raj Singh Chandel is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before the release order is issued, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before trial court on dates fixed); breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 41774 of 2025, decided November 26, 2025: Bail allowed to applicant Raj Singh Chandel in Case Crime No.121 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/35 of Arms Act, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, solely on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused Satyam Singh Chandel, who had already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40256 of 2025; role of applicant stated to be identical to that of the co-accused, applicant having no criminal history and in jail since 28.07.2025. Decision reached in light of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938, Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. A.G.A.'s opposition based on recovery of a CMP at the pointing out of co-accused persons did not prevail, the parity aspect not being disputed. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance on fixed dates), breach being a ground for cancellation; observations in the bail order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41774 of 2025

Raj Singh Chandel

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd. Naushad Kumar Srivastava	Siddiqui, Sanjay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.121 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/35 of Arms Act, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Satyam Singh Chandel has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40256 of 2025, as such, since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 28.07.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on the ground that there is recovery of a CMP at the pointing out of co-accused persons. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by him.

BAIL No. 41774 of 2025

2

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant- Raj Singh Chandel , 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

November 26, 2025

(Ravi Kant)

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