Allowed

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2026BAIL/3687/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105, 324(4), 333 BNS arising from a land dispute assault. Court found postmortem showed only non-vital injuries and death from chronic lung disease, prima facie no intention to cause death, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Gulaba Devi released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties each with trial-conduct conditions.

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3687 of 2026

¶3

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, Anuja Bajpai, Suparna Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants, assisted by Ms. Suparna Mishra, learned Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

By means of this application, the applicants, who are involved in Case Crime No.70/2026, Under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105, 324(4), 333 BNS (Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 427, 452 IPC), Police Station - Motigarpur, District - Sultanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. dated 11.04.2026 has been lodged Under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105, 324(4), 333 BNS (Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 427, 452 IPC), against four named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that there is a dispute of Pattidari land, due to which all the named accused persons assaulted the husband of the informant by Lathi and hurled abuses. Husband of the informant received head injury, due to which he became unconscious.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the injuries shown in the F.I.R. by the informant and in her statement does not corroborate with the postmortem report of the deceased (husband of the informant) as there are three injuries in the medical report i.e. 1. Lacerated wound 03 cm X 01 cm posterior side just on left Elbow Joint. 2. Contusion 04 cm X 03 cm posterior side right Arm 05cm above right Elbow joint and 3. Abrasion

¶13

BAIL No. 3687 of 2026

¶14

¶15

05cm X 01 cm medial side left leg 06 cm from left medial mallaolus and cause of death is "Cardiopulmonary arrest due to Chronic lungs disease", meaning hereby there was no injury on the body of the deceased as per the case of the informant. The injuries are on non-vital parts.

¶16

It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 105 BNS does not attract in the present case.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal history and they have falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶18

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer but he is unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie , it appears that as per postmortem report all the three injuries found on the body of the deceased were on the non-vital part of the body of the deceased and the head injury as alleged by the informant in the F.I.R. was not found on the post-mortem report. The cause of death is " Cardiopulmonary arrest due to Chronic lungs disease", therefore, prima facie, it appears that there was no intention of causing death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicants Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Gulaba Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

BAIL No. 3687 of 2026

¶26

¶27

(iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(v) The applicants 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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(viii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶35

May 21, 2026

¶36

S. Kumar

¶37

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

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Jeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Mohd. Sameem @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indresh Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rohit Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Taslim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Susheel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.