Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
Identification of the accused in CCTV footage corroborated by eyewitness testimony and the gravity of the charges justified denial of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Pradeep Chauhan, sought bail in a murder case (Criminal No. 118 of 2024) charged under Sections 302, 120‑B and 34 of the IPC. He argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the CCTV footage showing him was recorded before the FIR was lodged, creating doubt about the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the applicant was positively identified in the CCTV footage by eyewitnesses and that his mobile CDR placed him at the crime scene, and that the charge‑sheet had already been filed. The court examined the identification evidence and the seriousness of the offences. Concluding that the CCTV and eyewitness identification were reliable and the offences were grave, the court refused to grant bail. The bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being identified in CCTV footage and by eyewitnesses.
- Whether the omission of the applicant’s name in the FIR creates sufficient doubt to merit bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences (murder, conspiracy, common intention) precludes bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- CCTV evidence
- identification
- IPC Sections 302 120-B 34
- serious offences
- charge sheet
- trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12710 of 2026
Pradeep Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 118 of 2024, under
Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station- Lohata, District Varanasi.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was
not named in the FIR and doubt has been expressed against name accused
persons regarding enmity with the deceased. Subsequently, the applicant
was arrested on the basis of CCTV footage though the first informant in
his statement before the trial court, has stated that he was shown in the
CCTV footage prior to lodging of the FIR therefore non mentioning the
name of the applicant in the FIR itself creates doubts over the prosecution
story, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. It is lastly
submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is
no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no explained
the criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.06.2024. In case,
he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant as well as two co-
accused persons duly identified in the CCTV footage by the eye witnesses
Ansh, Rajesh Prasad and Mahima Devi. CCTV footage clearly shows that
BAIL No. 12710 of 2026
2
the applicant along with other accused persons initially dragged the
deceased into a ditch, and after beating strangulated him. He further
submitted that post mortem report also shows that other injuries apart
from cause of death as strangulation. It is further submitted that CDR of
mobile phone also shows his location near the place of incident, therefore,
he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
taking into account the fact that the applicant was seen in CCTV footage
while committing the murder of the deceased along with two other
accused persons and the applicant was duly identified in the CCTV
footage by the eye witnesses, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant.
6. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…