Allowed¶20

Chandan v. State of U.P.

Bail – grant of regular bail during pendency of trial

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2025BAIL/8764/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8764 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:36999), Sameer Jain, J., order dated 17.3.2025. Chandan v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 233 of 2024, Sections 323/504/308/304/34 IPC, P.S. Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh; death of Pramod @ Pradyum; free fight; general and omnibus allegations; no criminal history; custody since 24.06.2024 (~9 months); bail application allowed; personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Chandan in Case Crime No. 233 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (appearance before trial court, no inducement/tampering, no criminal or anti-social activity); prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation on breach. ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Chandan is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2024 (Sections 323, 504, 308, 304, 34 IPC) during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that four persons on the applicant's side also sustained injuries, the court found prima facie that the incident was a free fight.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Only general allegations were levelled against all the accused including the applicant, and there is no evidence suggesting that the applicant caused the head injury resulting in the deceased's death.

¶16

Key takeaways

The applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 24.06.2024, i.e. for almost nine months.ratio¶17
On the facts and circumstances discussed, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.ratio¶18
The bail application was allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — grant of regular bail during pendency of trial — Allahabad High Court (Sameer Jain, J.) allowed bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 233 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 308, 304, 34 IPC, P.S. Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, arising from an incident of 22.06.2024 in which one person (Pramod @ Pradyum) died and several were injured. Grounds: (i) cross-case of injuries — four persons on the applicant's side also injured, making it prima facie a free fight; (ii) only general/omnibus allegations against all accused, with no evidence that the applicant caused the deceased's fatal head injury; (iii) no criminal history; (iv) nearly nine months' custody since 24.06.2024. Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with usual conditions and liberty to prosecute to seek cancellation on breach. Observations expressly confined to disposal of the bail application, without expression on merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36999

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8764 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Chandan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amaresh Yadava,Angad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amaresh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2024, under sections 323, 504, 308, 304, 34 I.P.C., Police Station -Gambhirpur, DistrictAzamgarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.06.2024 at 19.08 hours against applicant and five others and according to FIR on 22.06.2024 at about 11.00 PM in the night applicant and five others made assault through wooden sticks and iron rod and due to the assault made by them number of persons sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that subsequently injured Pramod @ Pradyum died due to the injuries sustained by him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of general and omnibus allegation along with five others.

¶10

It is further submitted that actually informant side was the real aggressor and due to the assault made by them from the side of applicant also four persons sustained injuries but unfortunately in the incident from the side of informant six persons sustained injuries and out of which one person died. He further submits, even at this stage it cannot be said that it is not a case of free fight.

¶11

It is further submitted from perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased it reflects he died as a result of coma due to head injuries and there is no evidence which can suggest that applicant caused head injury to him.

¶12

He next submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.06.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

However, as per allegation due to the assault made by applicant and five others one person died and five persons sustained injuries but record also suggest in the incident from the side of applicant also four persons sustained injuries and considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and injury sustained by applicant side prima facie it appears to be a case of free fight.

¶16

Further, only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant and there is no evidence which can suggest that due to the assault made by applicant deceased sustained head injury and died.

¶17

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.06.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant-Chandan 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 17.3.2025

¶28

Neeraj

¶29

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Rajeev Alias Ramu vs State of U.P.

Shashikala vs State of U.P.

Radheshyam Pasi vs State of U.P.

Hasan Ali @ Hasnain Ali vs State of U.P.

Subhash vs State of U.P.

Dildar vs State of U.P.