Omprakash @ Dilla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2316 of 2026

Omprakash @ Dilla

	.....Applicant(s)
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

¶5

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to a typographical error in the bail application, sub-section (1) has inadvertently been left to be mentioned along with Section 103, whereas at all other places it has been correctly mentioned. It is therefore prayed that the applicant may be permitted to make the necessary correction/incorporation during the course of the day.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶8

Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make the necessary correction/incorporation by adding sub-section (1) before Section 103 as mentioned in the first page of the bail application.

¶9

Order on Bail Application

¶10

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

¶11

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 307 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 238 B.N.S, Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

As per the FIR dated 10.10.2025, lodged under Section 103(1)(b) BNS {Section 302 IPC (now repealed)}, against unknown persons by the father of the deceased, it has been alleged that his son, Umesh alias Gattau (now deceased), aged about 35 years, had gone to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.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused, namely Ramesh, whose name has surfaced in the statement of the prosecution witness, has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2170 of 2026, vide order dated 26.03.2026, a copy of which has been provided during the course of arguments, which is taken on record.

¶14

BAIL No. 2316 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the name of the present applicant has surfaced only in the statement of the same prosecution witness. It is further submitted that co-accused Ramesh was granted bail mainly on the basis that the allegations against him were based on presumptions drawn from the statements of alleged witnesses, who are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence and also on the basis of the alleged confessional statement made before the police.

¶17

It is further submitted that the F.I.R was initially lodged against unknown persons with an unexplained delay of about two weeks. The case of the present applicant stands on similar footing as his name has also surfaced subsequently on the basis of the statements of the witnesses and his confessional statement made before the police. Thus, the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ramesh.

¶18

Learned counsel submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.12.2025.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing with that of co-accused Ramesh, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶20

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 drawn 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.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant Omprakash @ Dilla 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

BAIL No. 2316 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

April 1, 2026 DiVYa

¶36

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶37

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

Omprakash @ Dilla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash @ Dilla 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Deepak Sonkar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Mohit Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitin Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.