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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1439 of 2026

Mahesh Nishad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Singh, Mahendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Verma, Ravi Shanker Tewari, Vishwakant Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶11

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

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 664 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 103 (1) & 351 (3), 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023, (old Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 34 IPC) Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 06.11.2025 has been lodged under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 103 (1) & 351 (3), 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023, (old Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 34 IPC) against nine named accused persons alleging therein that on 05.11.2025 at around 11.30 PM when the husband of informant was sleeping, the named accused persons came and shot him dead and threatened the family members if they shout, they will also be killed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the post-mortem report, one gun shot injury has been found on the body of deceased except that no injury has been found on the body of deceased.

¶15

It is further submitted that the informant and other eye-witnesses in their statement has assigned the role of causing gun shot injury to the deceased to Raj Kumar and not against any other co-accused person including the present applicant.

¶16

BAIL No. 1439 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

It is further submitted that the co-accused Raj Kumar in his confessional statement has admitted that he had caused gun shot injury upon the deceased.

¶19

It is further submitted that there is no recovery of any arm from the possession/pointing out of the applicant.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of 18 cases but none of the cases is under Sections 302 IPC or in any other heinous offence, except one case in which final report has already been filed and in most of the cases the applicant is on bail.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

It is further submitted that co-accused Mantani, who has been assigned the role as assigned to the present applicant, has already been granted bail by this Court by order dated 25.05.2025 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3764 of 2026, copy of which has been provided during course of argument, which is taken on record, so the applicant may also be granted bail on the ground of parity.

¶23

It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2020)11 SCC 648, wherein it has been observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶24

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he is unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record; prima-facie it is found that in the post-mortem report, one gun shot injury has been found on the body of deceased except that no injury has been found on the body of deceased; the informant and other eye-witnesses in their statement has assigned the role of causing gun shot injury to the deceased to Raj Kumar and not against any other coaccused person including the present applicant; co-accused Raj Kumar in

¶26

BAIL No. 1439 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

his confessional statement has admitted that he had caused gun shot injury upon the deceased; there is no recovery of any arm from the possession/pointing out of the applicant; thus, prima-facie, it is found that it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶30

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

¶31

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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.

¶40

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is

¶41

BAIL No. 1439 of 2026

¶42

4

¶43

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.

¶44

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶45

May 26, 2026

¶46

S. Kumar

¶47

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

Mahesh Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Nishad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abhishek Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Triloki Nath Misra @ Triloki vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shri Raj Vansh Varma and Another vs Smt. Nisha Singh, Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 3 Sultanpur

Varun Talwar vs Shri Rajiv Krishna Hold the Post of Director General of Police Lko. and Another

Ghanshyam Yadav vs Harshita Mathur, Distt. Magistrate Raebareli