State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs Party(s)
Case Details
Shri Prahlad Maurya, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama for the complainant, which is taken on record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the evening of 24.05.2025, at around 6:30 p.m., while Shailendra was closing his pesticides shop, he was attacked by seven named accused persons armed with bombs, sticks, and firearms. During the assault, a bomb explosion occurred, causing Shailendra to fall to the ground, and he later succumbed to the injuries sustained. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is argued that the cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. It is further submitted that the FIR does not attribute any specific role or injury to the applicant, nor does it contain any general allegations against him. It is also submitted that, subsequently, the complainant while recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made substantial improvements by naming 10 additional accused persons, which, as admitted in the prosecution material, was done on the advice of his family members. 2 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next submitted that co-accused Ramjanki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7211 of 2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co- accused. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application however could not dispute that it is a case of parity. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that 17 persons have been alleged to have assaulted the deceased. The specific allegation of throwing a bomb at the complainant’s nephew, which resulted in his death, has been made against co-accused Meghraj. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries, and the following injuries were noted: "1. Crushed and lacerated wound of size 25cmx18cmx bone deep on left side of face with multiple fractures of face bone.
2. Multiple blackened and scarred wounds on left lower part of neck, upper part of left chest till left shoulder, left arm and elbow joint measuring 45cmx28cm." Upon perusal, injury no. 1 appears to be caused by a blunt force impact, consistent with being struck by a heavy object or as a result of a fall. Injury no. 2, described as blackened and scarred, is more consistent with burn injuries caused by a bomb explosion, which aligns with the specific allegation against co-accused Meghraj. There is no clarity in the prosecution case as to who among the remaining accused caused injury no. 1. Considering that no specific role of causing injury has been attributed to the present applicant, the main allegation of bomb throwing is levelled 3 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 against co-accused Meghraj, and the facts that the applicant has explained the criminal history of one case, is in custody since 25.5.2025, co-accused has already been granted bail by this court, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Shivam Singh @ Chotu Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 305 of 2025, under Section 3(5), 103(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 Explosive Substances Act & Section 7 C.L.A. Act, Police Station - Mohammadpur Khala, District - Barabanki, be released on bail 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 imposed in the interest of justice: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall 4 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. August 29, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Shri Prahlad Maurya, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama for the complainant, which is taken on record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the evening of 24.05.2025, at around 6:30 p.m., while Shailendra was closing his pesticides shop, he was attacked by seven named accused persons armed with bombs, sticks, and firearms. During the assault, a bomb explosion occurred, causing Shailendra to fall to the ground, and he later succumbed to the injuries sustained. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is argued that the cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. It is further submitted that the FIR does not attribute any specific role or injury to the applicant, nor does it contain any general allegations against him. It is also submitted that, subsequently, the complainant while recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made substantial improvements by naming 10 additional accused persons, which, as admitted in the prosecution material, was done on the advice of his family members. 2 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next submitted that co-accused Ramjanki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7211 of 2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co- accused. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application however could not dispute that it is a case of parity. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that 17 persons have been alleged to have assaulted the deceased. The specific allegation of throwing a bomb at the complainant’s nephew, which resulted in his death, has been made against co-accused Meghraj. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries, and the following injuries were noted: "1. Crushed and lacerated wound of size 25cmx18cmx bone deep on left side of face with multiple fractures of face bone.
2. Multiple blackened and scarred wounds on left lower part of neck, upper part of left chest till left shoulder, left arm and elbow joint measuring 45cmx28cm." Upon perusal, injury no. 1 appears to be caused by a blunt force impact, consistent with being struck by a heavy object or as a result of a fall. Injury no. 2, described as blackened and scarred, is more consistent with burn injuries caused by a bomb explosion, which aligns with the specific allegation against co-accused Meghraj. There is no clarity in the prosecution case as to who among the remaining accused caused injury no. 1. Considering that no specific role of causing injury has been attributed to the present applicant, the main allegation of bomb throwing is levelled 3 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 against co-accused Meghraj, and the facts that the applicant has explained the criminal history of one case, is in custody since 25.5.2025, co-accused has already been granted bail by this court, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Shivam Singh @ Chotu Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 305 of 2025, under Section 3(5), 103(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 Explosive Substances Act & Section 7 C.L.A. Act, Police Station - Mohammadpur Khala, District - Barabanki, be released on bail 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 imposed in the interest of justice: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall 4 BAIL No. 8065 of 2025 initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. August 29, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench