Brahma @ Chunmun vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Nebua Naurangia, DistrictKushinagar.

¶10

The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is said to have bit off the finger of the injured Subelal. The assault has supposedly been made on the injured Subelal and the informant both, however, the informant has not received any external injury. The injured Subelal has received a fracture on the terminal phalanx of the left little finger with the remaining part absent. Learned counsel further contends that the injury, sustained by the injured, was not opined to be dangerous to life. The injury, as per the medico legal examination, was stated to be a crush injury present on the left little finger which is stated to be caused by a hard and blunt object. There was no opinion of the doctor to indicate that the same was a result of a human bite. A charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant, therefore, he is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The applicant is in jail since 13.3.2026.

¶11

The Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has contended that the applicant is the primary accused

¶12

BAIL No. 16377 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

in the present case. The medical report also supports the allegations made in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the injured that the applicant had bitten off the finger of the injured. Learned A.G.A., however, could not point out any criminal antecedent of the applicant.

¶15

I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for the parties and perused the material brought on the record.

¶16

The injuries, sustained by the injured, have not been stated to be life threatening. The applicant is in jail since 13.3.2026. A charge sheet has already been filed and trial against the applicant is not likely to conclude in the near future. The medico legal examination of the victim does not indicate that the injured has received injuries caused due to a human bite.

¶17

Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact that Dr. Seemant Verma, who had performed the first medical examination, in his statement, has not stated the injuries to have been caused by a human bite, prima facie , a case for bail is made out.

¶18

The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the accused-applicant- Brahma @ Chunmun , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶21

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶22

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶23

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶24

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court

¶25

BAIL No. 16377 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶28

It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶29

It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶30

The observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶32

May 14, 2026 Vandana

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brahma @ Chunmun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahma @ Chunmun 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Sharif and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Wahid Hussain vs Union of India and Another

Smt Sikha Rajpoot and Another vs State of U.P.

Sherpal vs State of U.P.