Allowed

Ramkhelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2025BAIL/8723/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging conviction under BNS and Arms Act for attempting murder, the High Court allowed bail observing that the applicant was not named in the FIR or early witness statements, raising doubt about his involvement.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions to ensure presence and tamper free trial.

Ramkhelawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8723 of 2025

¶3

Ramkhelawan

¶4

Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Arjun Singh Somvanshi G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 12

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Pankaj Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.171 of 2025 under Section 103 (1), 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi.

¶9

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 13.05.2025 at about 3:00 a.m., the informant was sleeping on the roof of his house when he suddenly heard the sound of a gunshot. He immediately woke up and saw Premchand alias Kallu, son of Angne, and the other, his cousin (son of Premchand’s uncle). He saw them firing upon his daughter Sangeeta, aged 24 years, who collapsed inside the house. After firing, the accused persons opened the gate and fled from the spot.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. The incident in question took place on 13.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, the statement of one witness, Diwakar, who claimed to have seen the incident, was recorded; however, even in his statement, the applicant was not named. Subsequently, after about one month of the incident, i.e., on 14.06.2025, the statements of the mother of the deceased, Smt. Laxmi Devi, and her sister, Kumari Sadhna, were recorded by the Investigating Officer. In their statements, they alleged that the

¶11

BAIL No. 8723 of 2025

¶12

¶13

applicant had come on a Pulsar motorcycle and, after the commission of the incident, both accused persons fled on the said motorcycle.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of one month in recording the statements of these two alleged eyewitnesses casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version. It is further submitted that even in their belated statements, no role of firing has been attributed to the applicant.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. submits that the motorcycle used in the crime belongs to the applicant. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem firearm injury, and the deceased had sustained one entry wound and one exit wound caused by a firearm.

¶17

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal history; he has been in jail since 26.05.2025; the applicant is not named in the FIR; even the complainant and an eyewitness, whose statement was recorded promptly on 14.05.2025, did not name the applicant; the name of the applicant surfaced only after an unexplained delay of 30 days, and even then, no role of firing was assigned to him; 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Ramkhelawan 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:

¶20

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

¶21

BAIL No. 8723 of 2025

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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).

¶27

(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).

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

September 12, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶30

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

Ramkhelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkhelawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Pucchi Alias Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

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

Rohit vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sandeep Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Azad Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another