Allahabad High Court
AMANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court denied bail to the applicant, finding the seriousness of the charges and evidentiary material outweighed the mental‑health claim.
Summary
The applicant sought bail in a criminal trial (Case No. 295 of 2024) for alleged offences under Sections 109, 103(1), 333 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. He claimed to be mentally unstable, alleging that a mental illness caused him to attack Aman and subsequently his wife, who sustained injuries. The State opposed bail, relying on statements of witnesses, a pre‑mortem statement of the deceased, and the recovery of a blood‑stained knife allegedly linked to the applicant. The Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the evidentiary material, and the applicant's mental health claim. Concluding that the gravity of the offences and the risk of tampering with evidence outweighed the mental‑health considerations, the Court denied bail but directed the jail authorities to ensure the applicant receives appropriate mental treatment if needed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with offences under the IPC and Arms Act despite claims of mental illness.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 109, 333
Subjects
- bail
- mental illness
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal trial
- evidence
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14305 of 2026
Aman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nirbhay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Nirbhay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar 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. 295 of 2024, under
Sections 109, 103(1), 333 BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police
Station- Kotwali, District Pilibhit.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is
mentally unstable and under influence of his mental illness, he has
attacked upon Aman, when his wife came to rescue him, the applicant
attacked on his wife as a result of which she scummed to her injury. It is
further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he could be
properly treated in mental hospital, therefore, the applicant is entitled to
be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that there is statement of injured
witnesses as well as statement of deceased prior to her death that the
applicant has assaulted the deceased with knife and subsequently a blood
stained knife was also recovered from pointing out of the applicant.
Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
BAIL No. 14305 of 2026
2
taking into account the statement of witnesses and statement of deceased
prior to her death followed by recovery of knife, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the applicant, at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
7. However, the Superintendent of Jail, Pilibhit is directed to ensure the
mental treatment of the applicant, if he is suffering from any mental
illness.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…