Alok vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry. of Home Affairs Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2119 of 2026

¶3

Alok

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Affairs Lko.	Ministry. Of Home		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajeev Kr. Sameer Singh	Chauhan,	Sakshi Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Manoj Singh	Kumar	Singh, Satendra

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 638 of 2025, Under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS, 2023 (old Sections 302 and 34 IPC), Police Station- Achalganj, District- Unnao is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 13.11.2025 has been lodged under Sections 3(5), 103(1) BNS (corresponding to Sections 34 and 302 IPC) against two named accused persons and unknown companions alleging therein that on 13.11.2025, when the husband of the informant was returning home from Kachehri at around 6:30 p.m., Chhotu @ Anuj, due to old enmity, assaulted the husband of the informant and hit him on his head by a sharp-edged weapon/object and shot him. At the time of assault, the brother of co-accused Chhotu, i.e., the present applicant namely Alok was also present.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant is admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident and she has never disclosed the source of information regarding involvement of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the eyewitnesses to the incident made a statement that the co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj, the real brother of the applicant, assaulted the deceased and ran away towards Unnao on his scooty and another witness has stated that after hearing the gunshot, the said witness, along with the applicant ran towards the place of occurrence/incident, meaning thereby that the applicant was not there along with his brother Chhotu @ Anuj, the co-

¶12

BAIL No. 2119 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

accused against whom there is allegation of firing upon the deceased.

¶15

It is further submitted that except the allegation in the FIR against the applicant and the statements of the informant and the alleged eye witness Vinod Kumar, which were recorded after one month, no other incriminating material or evidence has been found against the applicant during investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant only on the aforesaid basis. No recovery has been made either from the possession of the applicant or from his pointing out. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 20.12.2025.

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that the informant, in her Majeed Bayan, has stated that the applicant and co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj stopped the husband of the informant and she has specifically stated that co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj had fired upon the husband of the informant and thereafter he ran towards Unnao on his scooty and the applicant ran towards his shop through the field. The Majeed Bayan of witness Vinod Kumar was recorded on 18.12.2025, wherein he has stated that he saw the applicant coming from the field, running breathlessly towards his shop.

¶18

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement of the informant under Section 180 BNSS was recorded on 13.11.2025 and her Majeed Bayan was recorded on 15.12.2025 and in both the statements, she had not assigned any role of assault to the applicant except that he accompanied co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj, who had fired upon the husband of the informant.

¶19

It is further submitted that witness Vinod Kumar, in his statement recorded on 18.11.2025, has stated that he came to know from the discussion of people around that cousin brother of Govind, i.e., Chhotu @ Anuj had assaulted and fired upon the deceased and he has not said anything about the present applicant. After one month, i.e., on 18.12.2025, after two days of the Majeed Bayan of the informant, the Majeed Bayan of the witness was recorded perhaps to support the case of the informant, wherein he has stated that he saw the applicant running breathlessly from the field and coming to his shop, but at no point of time, the informant has disclosed the source regarding the presence of the applicant at the time of the incident. The eyewitnesses also have not stated about the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence and they have taken the name of co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj, the real brother of the applicant.

¶20

BAIL No. 2119 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

It is further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to old enmity, as admitted by the informant herself and allegations have been levelled against both the brothers.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie , it appears that the informant is not an eyewitness and due to enmity she had taken the name of the applicant. From the statements of the eyewitnesses, prima facie , the presence of the applicant was not found at the time of the incident when the husband of the informant was allegedly shot by co-accused Chhotu @ Anuj and No recovery has been made from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant, prima facie , it appears that to support the Majeed Bayan of the informant, the Majeed Bayan of witness Vinod Kumar was recorded, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant Alok 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

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.

¶35

BAIL No. 2119 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

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.

¶38

May 27, 2026 DiVYa

¶39

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry. of Home Affairs Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry. of Home Affairs 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

Gangaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Katiyar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy, Home Deptt. Lko

Sagar Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Omkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others