Bail application in a father's murder case under sections 103(1), 351(3) BNS. Noting the informant was not an eye witness in the FIR and later described the applicant as intoxicated, and that the applicant had no criminal history, the court allowed bail subject to standard conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7590 of 2025
Sandeep Dixit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
| State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. H Another |
ome | Lko. And .....Opposite Party(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel for Applicant(s) | : | Chandra Bhooshan, O.P. Tiwari |
| Counsel for Opposite Party(s) | : | G.A. |
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 321 of 2024, under sections 103(1), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Ajgain, District Unnao.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that the applicant was coercing his father to sell his share of land which was being refused as such the applicant who is brother of informant committed murder of his own father. Subsequently the informant in his statement stated that the applicant was in the state of intoxication and he committed the offence which was allegedly seen by the witness.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.
5. Considering the fact that no allegations of the informant being eye witness was stated in the FIR and in the subsequent statement it was stated that the applicant was allegedly in the state of intoxication as well as considering the argument of applicant that the applicant would be entitled for claiming the benefit of there being no eye witness and the applicant allegedly being in the state of intoxication at the time of incident , however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 20.10.2024 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.
BAIL No. 7590 of 2025
2
6. Let the applicant Sandeep Dixit be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) 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.
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
November 14, 2025
J. K. Dinkar
Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant accused of murdering his father should be enlarged on bail where the informant was not an eye witness in the FIR and later stated the applicant was intoxicated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Dixit
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
