Allahabad High Court
PAWANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
The applicant Pawan, along with his two brothers, was named in an FIR alleging that he assaulted the deceased with a spade, causing injuries that led to death. The applicant contended that the FIR statements were unreliable, the post‑mortem report suggested injuries could have resulted from a fight between the deceased and his own sons, and that there was no intention to cause death. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The Court examined the FIR, the statements of the informant and his brother, and the post‑mortem findings, concluding that the evidence was prima facie doubtful and did not clearly establish culpability beyond the threshold for bail under Section 105 of the IPC. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the FIR statements and post‑mortem report create reasonable doubt sufficient to justify bail under Section 105 of the IPC.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 105, 115(2), 180, 333, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- homicide
- postmortem
- reasonable doubt
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14137 of 2026
Pawan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
333, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Gangiri, District Aligarh,
during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR alongwith his two brothers and according to the FIR on
20.08.2025 in the night at about 08:00 p.m. applicant after entering in the
house of the father of informant made assault upon him through butt of
the spade and stone due to which he sustained injuries and died but entire
allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.
5. He next submits, from the FIR it could not be reflected that informant
was eye-witness of the case and he in his statement did not disclose the
name of any other eye-witness but when his statement was recorded under
Section 180 BNSS then he stated that he and his brother Surjeet were
present in the house and applicant after entering in the house made assault
upon the deceased through butt of spade and this fact suggests, during
investigation informant developed the case and no reliance can be placed
on his statement.
BAIL No. 14137 of 2026
2
6. He next submits, however brother of the informant i.e. another son of
the deceased, Surjeet also reiterated the version of the informant in his
statement recorded during investigation but considering the FIR his
statement also prima facie appears to be doubtful.
7. He further argued, postmortem report suggests, deceased sustained two
traumatic swelling on his chest and according to Dr. Manoj Kumar
Chaturvedi who conducted the postmortem, these injuries may be caused
through kick and fist and therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that in
the night dispute of the deceased arose with informant and son Surjeet due
to which he sustained injuries and subsequently died.
8. He further submits, even from the postmortem report it could not be
reflected that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the
deceased.
9. He further argued, however apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor
offence and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2025 i.e. for last
more than a year.
10. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant.
11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
12. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith his two brothers
and according to the FIR he made assault upon the deceased through the
butt of spade due to which deceased sustained injuries but considering the
postmortem report and statement of the doctor who conducted the autopsy
prima facie version of the FIR and statements of witnesses appear to be
doubtful.
13. Further, even considering the postmortem report of the deceased the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie
present case does not travel beyond Section 105 BNS cannot be ruled out
at this stage.
BAIL No. 14137 of 2026
3
14. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence
and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than a year.
15. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released
on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Pawan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 24, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…