Allahabad High Court
BOBYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
Bail was denied to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant was arrested in connection with the murder of a deceased whose body was recovered on 14 March 2025. The prosecution presented eyewitness statements that the deceased was last seen with the applicant and co‑accused on 10 March 2025, and a weapon (banka) was recovered after the applicant pointed it out. The applicant argued that there was no eyewitness to the killing, the weapon showed no blood stains, and that co‑accused had already been granted bail, contending he was similarly entitled to bail. The State opposed, emphasizing the eyewitness testimony, the recovered weapon, and that the applicant's role was distinct from the other accused. The Court, after weighing the evidence, concluded that the presence of an eyewitness and the recovered weapon warranted denial of bail, and rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in view of eyewitness testimony and the recovered alleged murder weapon.
- Whether the applicant's case is distinguishable from co‑accused who were previously granted bail.
- Whether the filing of a charge sheet obviates the need for custodial interrogation for bail considerations.
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- eyewitness
- weapon recovery
- criminal procedure
- charge sheet
- distinguishable co-accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14010 of 2026
Boby
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nishant Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Nishant 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.54 of 2025 Under
Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Neoria, District-
Pilibhit.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the
prosecution story, the deceased was missing since 10.03.2025. Thereafter
an FIR was lodged on 12.03.2025 regarding missing of the deceased.
Subsequently, the body of the deceased was recovered on 14.03.2025
underneath the bridge and an application was filed by mother of the
deceased on 14.03.2025 expressing doubt over the applicant and other
accused persons. Thereafter the applicant was arrested and on his pointing
out one banka was recovered. Police has also recorded the statement of
one Dulli Ram on 15.03.2026 wherein he has stated that he had lastly
seen the deceased in the company of the applicant and co-accused persons
on 10.03.2025 at 11.00 P.M. Thereafter statement of uncle of the
deceased was also recorded on 08.05.2025 mentioning therein that he had
also seen the deceased on 10.03.2025 at 11.00 P.M. in the company of the
applicant and other accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the for the applicant has submitted that there is no
eye witness of the incident and injury of incised wound found on the body
BAIL No. 14010 of 2026
2
of the deceased cannot be caused with banka and no blood stained was
found on the banka, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. It is further
submitted that other co-accused persons Pramod, Ramkishor, Subham @
Shivam and Vasudev Bharti @ Guddu @ Baba have already been
released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.4194 of 2026, 24228 of 2025, 26753 of 2026 and
9917 of 2016. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal
history and he is languishing in jail since 15.03.2025. In case, he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that there is eye witness, who had lastly
seen the deceased in the company of the applicant and accused persons
and on pointing out of the applicant, one banka was also recovered which
was used in committing the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted
that role of the applicant is distinguished in the bail orders of co-accused
persons, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
taking into account the fact that there is eye witness of last seen of the
applicant with the deceased, coupled with the fact that a banka was
recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and case of the applicant is
distinguished from other co-accused persons, therefore, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 5, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…