Allahabad High Court
SURATRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, considering parity, lack of custodial interrogation need, and the policy directives of the Apex Court.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suratram, who was charged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) and 103(1) of the B.N.S. for allegedly beating and shooting a deceased person. The applicant argued that the firearm causing the fatal injury was linked to a co‑accused, that his alleged role was limited, and that a co‑accused in a similar case had already been released on bail, invoking parity. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan vs CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. (2024), as well as policy considerations regarding jail overcrowding, the court granted bail without expressing an opinion on guilt. The order imposed standard bail conditions and directed electronic verification and prompt release through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 191, 190, 115 and 103 of the B.N.S.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused already released on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
- Whether the nature of the evidence and the filing of a charge‑sheet eliminate the need for custodial interrogation, justifying bail.
- Whether overcrowded jails and pendency of criminal cases influence the decision to grant bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- parity
- overcrowded jails
- Sections 191, 190, 115, 103
- Supreme Court guidelines
- charge sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10415 of 2026
Suratram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Kumar Pandey, Satya Narayan
Yadav, Tej Om Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri
Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 247 of 2025, under Sections- 191(2),
191(3), 190, 115(2) and 103(1) of B.N.S., Police Station- Nasirpur,
District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR, six
persons have been named including the applicant wherein the allegation
has been made that the accused persons including the applicant have
beaten the deceased and other injured witnesses and also fired upon the
deceased which resulted into his death. Thereafter, in the statement of eye
witnesses, 12 persons were nominated. It is further submitted that from
perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased, it is clear that he
received one firearm injury which was found to be fatal and the firearm
has been assigned to the co-accused Arun @ Mirchi and firearm was also
recovered on pointing out of Arun @ Mirchi. It is further submitted that
though allegation has been made against 12 persons for beating with lathi,
danda but recovery of hard and blunt object has been shown from the
applicant and co-accused, Suratram but all the injuries caused to the
deceased are simple in nature except the injuries to Rajpal which is on
non-vital part. It is further submitted that co-accused Ram Vilas, against
BAIL No. 10415 of 2026
2
whom similar allegations have been made, has been released on bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
12943 of 2026, vide order dated 17.04.2026. Therefore, the applicant is
also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further
submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of two
cases in the accompanying affidavit. It is further submitted that charge
sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement
of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is
languishing in jail since 06.01.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.,
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant-Suratram, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-
i. 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.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
BAIL No. 10415 of 2026
3
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
10. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Firozabad via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…