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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2170 of 2026

¶3

Ramesh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 307 of 2025, under Sections 103, 3(5), 238 B.N.S, Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

As per the FIR dated 10.10.2025, lodged under Section 103(1)(b) BNS {Section 302 IPC (now repealed)}, against unknown persons by the father of the deceased, it has been alleged that his son, Umesh alias Gattau (now deceased), aged about 35 years, had gone to the graze his cows and buffaloes to the forest on 26.09.2025 and when he did not return home till evening, the family members started searching for him and on 27.09.2025 at about 5:00 a.m., his dead body was found.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons with an unexplained delay of about two weeks. It is further submitted that as per the post-mortem report, only one injury was found on the body of the deceased. It is also contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of presumption and assumptions, statements of alleged independent witnesses, and the charge-sheet has been filed solely on the basis of such statements. One of the independent witnesses has stated that the deceased might have consumed country made liquor with the applicant and other co-accused persons, namely Sheru alias Sher Singh, Pradeep, Satish alias Sipahi, and Kuldeep and that they might have killed him. The brother of the deceased, in his statement has stated that Sangam, father of co-accused Satish alias Sipahi came to him and he admitted that the the deceased was killed by the accused persons

¶11

BAIL No. 2170 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

including the applicant.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and no other evidence has been collected during investigation against the applicant and the chargesheet has been filed on the basis of the aforesaid statements and the confessional statement of the applicant to the police. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 18.10.2025.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that, on the basis of statements of the independent witnesses, the offence is made out against the applicant and other co-accused persons. However, he could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant regarding the nature of the statements, nor could he dispute that except for those statements and the alleged confessional statement, no other material evidence has been collected during investigation on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been submitted.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it prima facie appears that the applicant has been implicated in the present case mainly on the basis of presumption drawing from the statements of alleged witnesses who are not eye witnesses and on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant given to the police. The F.I.R was lodged against unknown persons with an unexplained delay of two weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Ramesh 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(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

¶24

BAIL No. 2170 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

March 26, 2026 DiVYa

¶33

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶34

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Similar cases

Kunal Yadav @ Laki Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko 4 Others

Arbaz @ Mohd. Arbaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

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

Anuj Pal vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.