Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025BAIL/8158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under BNS murder and allied provisions where the case rested on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Noting absence of criminal history and period in custody, the court allowed bail subject to conditions without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rahul released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33164

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8158 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5), 189(4), 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.08.2024 against applicant and others and according to the FIR on 09.08.2024 at about 5.30 AM informant and her mother came to know that father of the informant has been murdered. It is further mentioned in the FIR that subsequently applicant and other named accused persons confessed their guilt before the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, from the FIR it reflects, on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession of the applicant and other accused before the informant, he along with others has been made accused in the FIR of the present case but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false and applicant never confessed his guilt before anyone.

¶10

He further submits, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody could see the real incident of murder and it appears, except the alleged extra judicial confession of the applicant and suspicion there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶11

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for

¶13

the applicant.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, except the evidence of extra judicial confession before informant and suspicion, it appears, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶16

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant - Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 AK Pandey

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Phool Chandra Alias Gangu vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rustam vs State of U.P.

Vishal Kumar vs State of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Parvez Alias Ishtiyaq Ali vs State of U.P.

Rubina Begum vs State of U.P.