Allahabad High Court
CHAVINDRA ALIAS MACHCHHARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie assessment, the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution’s case rests on suspicion, lacks eyewitness testimony, and is weakened by the FIR delay.
Summary
The applicant, Chavindra Alias Machchhar, was arrested in connection with the murder of the informant's son under Section 103(1) BNS of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged enmity and presented CCTV footage showing the applicant near the crime scene, but no eyewitness testimony and a six‑hour delay in filing the FIR. The defence argued that the applicant is innocent, the informant is not an eye‑witness, and the CCTV does not show the applicant carrying a weapon. The court noted the lack of direct evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the delay in the FIR, and held that the case is prima facie based on suspicion. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case where evidence is largely circumstantial and the FIR is delayed.
- Whether the applicant’s presence in CCTV footage near the crime scene is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the absence of an eye‑witness and the applicant’s clean criminal record favor the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4/25
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- FIR delay
- CCTV footage
- Arms Act
- Section 103
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28113 of 2025
Chavindra Alias Machchhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parvish Kumar, Shamsher Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Rai, G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No.63 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit
Rai and Sri Sunil, learned counsels for the informant as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2025, under Sections 103(1)
BNS and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar,
during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant carried enmity towards the family
of the informant, as such, he had committed murder of his son, whose dead
body was recovered on 19.2.2025 at about 2.00 am from a crematorium,
which is about 200 meters from his house.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by more than six hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that admittedly, the
informant is not an eye-witness. He has only made the allegations of enmity
between the applicant and the family of informant. The statement of
informant examined as PW-1 has been recorded in Court and he has not
BAIL No. 28113 of 2025
2
given any ocular account of the incident. The statement of another witness
has been recorded as PW-2 and she has also corroborated the prosecution
story regarding motive only.
7. Learned counsel has next argued that it is a blind murder case. The
applicant and the deceased person both are stated to have attended a
marriage ceremony in the night and had some liquor. Both being in an
inebriated state, are stated to have left the ceremony and were seen thrice
moving about in the vicinity. The said fact was recorded in the cctv footage.
In one of the said cctv footage, the applicant is visible going towards the
place of recovery of the dead body and the applicant was subsequently seen
returning in the said cctv footage. The said footage is not conclusive as the
applicant is not seen having carried any weapon, whatsoever, as such, he is
entitled for bail, as he has been implicated on the basis of suspicion only.
8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 22.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the
applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was visible in
the cctv footage and the circumstances as already emanating out from the
said cctv footage, which indicates that the applicant had gone with the
deceased person towards the place of recovery of the dead body and he
returned and it was true that both were in an inebriated state.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that both the deceased and the applicant were drunk
and the FIR being delayed by more than six hours from the time of the
incident, coupled by the fact that there is no eye-witness account of the
incident and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Chavindra Alias Machchhar, who is involved in
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
BAIL No. 28113 of 2025
3
concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release
order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…