Akshhya Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, who is named in the FIR, on the alleged date and time, along with co-accused persons, murdered the deceased and placed the dead body on the railway track.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to enmity. There is no eyewitness to the incident. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of thirteen days without any explanation. There is no corroborative material in support of the prosecution case. Within one month from the date of lodging the FIR, statements of four witnesses have been recorded wherein general allegations have been made that the applicant was seen with the deceased along with the co-accused persons. There is no other material on record. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 23.04.2025.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the deceased had suffered ten antemortem injuries. However, the learned A.G.A. does not dispute that, on the pointing out of four accused persons a wooden log was recovered which is alleged to

¶16

BAIL No. 8286 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

have been used in the crime.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶20

On due consideration of the facts that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the last seen evidence has been recorded after one month, the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained, and the chain of circumstances is prima facie not complete, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 23.04.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant Akshhya Kumar 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:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

BAIL No. 8286 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

(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).

¶31

September 4, 2025

¶32

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

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

Akshhya Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshhya Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rekha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another