Allahabad High Court
AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court denied bail to the accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Kumar in a murder case (Crime No. 477 of 2025) under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that the alleged blood‑stained knife was never actually recovered, that there were no eyewitnesses to its recovery, and that he had no prior criminal record, contending that he would not misuse bail. The State opposed, citing multiple eyewitness statements that the applicant and co‑accused murdered the victim by cutting his neck and that a blood‑stained knife was recovered and videographed under Section 105 of the B.N.S. The Court examined the seriousness of the offence, the presence of eyewitness testimony and the forensic recovery, and concluded that these factors outweighed the applicant’s claims. Consequently, the Court refused to grant bail, ordering the application to be rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where eyewitnesses identify the accused and a blood‑stained weapon has been recovered.
- Whether the absence of a prior criminal record and the applicant’s claim of no misuse of liberty are sufficient grounds for bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 105, 115(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- eyewitness testimony
- blood‑stained knife
- criminal procedure
- Section 103
- Section 115
- Section 3(5)
- Section 105
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14388 of 2026
Amit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 477 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
115(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Phase-3 Noida, District-Gautam
Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR,
allegation has been made that the first informant has apprehension that the
present applicant along with the co-accused has killed his brother Rahul.
During investigation, statements of eye-witnesses were also recorded
wherein they made specific allegation against the applicant and co-
accused, stating that on the date of incident, the brother of the informant,
Rahul, in an inebriated condition, came to the room of the present
applicant and co-accused. Thereafter, after a brief scuffle, the applicant
and co-accused had cut the neck of the deceased, which resulted in his
death. Subsequently, on the pointing out of the applicant, a bloodstained
knife is alleged to have been recovered. It is further submitted that the
alleged recovery of the bloodstained knife is absolutely false. There was
no eye-witness of the aforesaid recovery. It is further submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet
has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is
BAIL No. 14388 of 2026
2
languishing in jail since 01.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that though initially the first informant expressed
apprehension about the involvement of the present applicant and co-
accused in committing the murder of the deceased, subsequently several
eye-witnesses came forward and stated that the present applicant and co-
accused had murdered the deceased by cutting his neck with a knife. It is
further submitted that thereafter a bloodstained knife was also recovered
on the pointing out of the applicant and the recovery was duly
videographed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 105 of
B.N.S.S. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, and complicity of the accused, and taking into account
the fact that there are eye-witnesses of the incident, followed by the
recovery of a bloodstained knife on the pointing out of the applicant, this
Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is
hereby rejected.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…