Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12447 of 2025

Amit Kumar

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Abhay Mani, Samar Bahadur Yadav

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.193/2025, Under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS (Old Sections 302 and 34 IPC), Police Station - Mall, District - Lucknow, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

3.The brief facts of the case are that as an F.I.R. dated 30.07.2025 was lodged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS (Old Sections 302 and 34 IPC) against four named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the father of the informant had an altercation with the named accused persons, due to which on 29.07.2025 they had killed his father by knife and when the mother of the informant woke up, she saw that the body of his father (deceased) was lying in the baramda of the house.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident, even the alleged killing of the deceased was shown at his house in the midnight but no one had awoken and the wife of the deceased had seen the deceased in the morning only.

¶11

The police had arrested all the named accused persons including the present applicant and the alleged knife was recovered from possession of co-accused Chhattan and on the basis of the confessional statements of

¶12

BAIL No. 12447 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

the accused persons the chargesheet has been filed, except that no evidence or material has been found by the police during investigation.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 1.8.2025.

¶16

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer but he is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly that except the confessional statement there is no evidence against the applicant.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it is found that there is no eye witness to the incident and the chargesheet has been filed on the basis of the confessional statements and the alleged knife had been recovered from co-accused Chhattan, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(v) 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

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶26

BAIL No. 12447 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶29

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶30

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶31

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶32

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶33

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶34

April 27, 2026

¶35

S. Kumar

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Nirmala Devi vs Prabhat Kumar Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Sultanpur

Aneeta Kumari vs Shashank Tripathi, Dist. Magistrate / Collector Barabanki

Shadab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Gyanpeeth Inter College Lko. Thru. Manager Sunita Gupta Vs Abhishek Prakash D.M. Lko.

Divakar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava vs Sanjay Chauhan Presently Functioning District Magistrate/Collector Amethi