Dismissed¶20

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

Bail (S.103(1) BNS – murder)

Allahabad HC31 Mar 2026BAIL/2281/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2281 of 2026, decided 31.03.2026 by Manish Kumar, J. Bail rejected in a S.103(1) BNS murder case (Unnao): FIR non-naming of applicant explained as informant was not an eyewitness; chargesheet eyewitnesses with permanent addresses (shopkeeper near scene; motor garage worker) implicated the applicant; post-mortem corroboration of manner of assault; applicant in custody since 03.11.2025. Statutes referenced: Sections 103(1) BNS; Section 180 BNSS. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Since the informant is not an eye witness, the applicant's non-mention in the FIR was justified. ¶19

Santosh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2281 of 2026

Santosh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Robin Kumar Rawat, Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶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 No.100/2026, Crime No.933/2025, Under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Unnao, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 25.10.2025 has been lodged under Section 103(1) BNS Act, 2023 against two named accused persons alleging therein that on 24.10.2025 at around 9.30 PM due to old enmity the brother of the complainant aged about 38 years old was killed by named accused persons by beating him through bricks and stones. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant neither named the applicant in the F.I.R. nor in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. The name of the applicant was cropped up for the first time in the statement of one of eye witnesses Srawan, whereas the statement of two other witnesses were recorded, who have not taken the name of the applicant. Out of three witnesses, two witnesses belong to tribal community, who have no permanent address or residence. They travel all the times. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025.

¶15

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail

¶16

BAIL No. 2281 of 2026

¶17

¶18

prayer and on the basis of instruction received has submitted that there is one more eye witness Rajan, whose statement has not been filed alongwith the present bail application, who has taken the name of the applicant and the injuries found on the body of the deceased are as per the statement of the eye witness.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the informant is not an eye witness, so the name of the applicant was not rightly mentioned in the FIR, whereas the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that two of the alleged eye witnesses have not taken the name of the applicant would not give any help to the applicant for the reason that it is an admitted case of the applicant that they are tribals and are not permanent resident and all times they travel all over the country. So the description of involved three persons by their dresses i.e. what they were wearing and what was the colour, whereas two persons who were eye witness as per the chargesheet filed by the police are having permanent address, one has a shop near the place of incident and another person working in motor garage or workshop and both the persons have taken the name of the applicant. The manner of assault corroborated with the medical evidence i.e. the post mortem reports of the deceased (the brother of the informant ) and the statements of the alleged eye witnesses, so the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶21

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶22

March 31, 2026

¶23

S. Kumar

¶24

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

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

X Juvenile Delinquent Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

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

Vijay @ Durgesh @ Bhullu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.