Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201573 (ALL)

BRAHMADEEN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. THE PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO.

BAIL/2898/2025 · 2025-10-14

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2898 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Soumya Dixit, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicants seek enlargement on bail in FIR No.465 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Karnailganj, District- Gonda. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that all the accused persons, seven in number, attacked the three persons with the use of sharp edged weapons i.e. sword and lathi and, subsequently one of them, namely, Mansharam died on account of the said injures inflicted upon him and the other persons sustained substantial injuries. 4. In the light of the said allegation, the submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1 is aged about 70 years and there are no specific allegations against him of having caused injures and three of the accused persons have been enlarge on bail on different grounds. It is further argued that the applicant no.1 has no previous criminal antecedent except the one case in the Gunda Act and he is in jail since 29.10.2024. 5. Similar prayer is made on behalf of applicant no.2. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajan Mishra, Pratyush Rawat, Soumya Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Angrej Nath Shukla Brahmadeen And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the informant, while opposing the bail application, has argued that in the statement of two injured witnesses, allegations were leveled against all the accused including the applicants and the recovery was taken place at the instance and pointing out of the applicants. Thus, considering the nature of the offence, in which, the one person has died and two persons have sustained injuries, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, after going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that one of the witnesses has already been examined. My attention has also been drawn to the confessional statement of the applicant no.1 wherein he had used the weapon 'gadasa'. It is further evident that the allegation of causing injury with knives was leveled against all the accused persons. Post mortem report also indicates the death on account of injures caused which are sharp wounds. 8. Although, the allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons, however, solely considering the age of the applicant no.1, aged about 70 years having no criminal history, applicant no.1 is entitled to be released on bail. In view thereof, the present application in respect of the applicant no.1 is allowed. 9. The bail application in respect of applicant no.2 is rejected as specific allegations were made against him also and the recovery was also done at his instance and pointing out and thus the present bail application in respect of the applicant no.2 is hereby rejected. 10. Let the applicant no.1- Brahmadeen be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant no.1 shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant no.1 shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant no.1 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, BAIL No. 2898 of 2025 2 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. October 14, 2025 V. Sinha BAIL No. 2898 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench