Allahabad High Court
AWDHESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court denied bail to the accused, finding the evidence and nature of the offence sufficient to justify detention.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Awdhesh Kumar, accused in a murder case (Crime No. 407 of 2025). The applicant contended that the FIR was based on mere apprehension, no one witnessed the incident, and the recovered blood‑stained knife was false because the procedure under Section 105 was not followed. The State countered that an eyewitness saw the applicant stab the deceased, the applicant had taken the body away, and a blood‑stained knife was recovered, establishing a strong prima facie case. After evaluating the nature of the offence, the eyewitness testimony, and the weapon recovery, the Court found the evidence sufficient to justify denial of bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the applicable provisions given the nature of the offence and the evidence.
- Whether the alleged procedural lapse in the recovery of the weapon under Section 105 affects the bail decision.
- Whether the presence of an eyewitness and the recovered blood‑stained knife constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- eyewitness testimony
- weapon recovery
- Section 103(1)
- Section 238(A)
- Section 105
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13825 of 2026
Awdhesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Danish, Abhishek Kushwaha, Harsh
Pratap Singh Maurya, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.04.2026, the Investigating
Officer of the case, Sri Ram Vilash Upadhyay, S.H.O., Police Station Airport,
Commissionerate Prayagraj, appeared before this Court in person. An
Affidavit of Compliance has been filed on his behalf by Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned A.G.A.-I, which is taken on record, wherein it is stated that he had
produced the pen-drive of the recovery in compliance of Section 105 of
B.N.S.S. before the concerned court at the time of remand of the accused but
by mistake making the pen-drive as part of case diary has not been mentioned
in case diary.
2. The Court is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Investigating
Officer, and his personal presence is hereby exempted until further orders of
this Court but warns him to be more careful in future.
3. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narendra
Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awaneesha Kumar, learned counsel for
the first informant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and
perused the record.
4. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 407 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 238(A)
B.N.S Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, though the
applicant was named in the F.I.R., the entire allegation is based on
BAIL No. 13825 of 2026
2
apprehension and doubt, and no one had seen the incident; thereafter, the
F.I.R. was lodged after finding the body of the deceased. It is further submitted
that, as per the post-mortem report of the deceased conducted on 01.08.2025,
the deceased received one stab wound at the front of the left side and centre
of the chest, which was found to be fatal.
6. It is further submitted that a false recovery of one bloodstained knife has
been shown on the pointing out of the applicant, but the procedure prescribed
under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. has not been followed. Therefore, the
recovery is also false, as there was no independent eye-witness of the
aforesaid recovery. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing
in jail since 1.8.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
7. 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 and submitted that
the applicant himself came to the house of the deceased and took him away.
Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found in a nearby area in
an open field. It is further submitted that one eye-witness, Narendra, has also
supported the prosecution story and stated that he had seen the incident of
stabbing by the applicant to the deceased. Thereafter, on the pointing out of
the applicant, one bloodstained knife has also been recovered. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature
of the offence, the evidence, and the complicity of the accused, and also
taking into account the fact that there is an eye-witness not only of the last
seen but also of the incident, coupled with the recovery of the bloodstained
weapon, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby
rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…