Allahabad High Court
PRATAP KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no evidence of pre‑meditated intent to kill and the circumstances do not warrant continued detention.
Summary
The applicant, Pratap Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder that allegedly occurred during a sudden dispute at a marriage function, where he is said to have struck the deceased with a bracelet. The FIR and several eyewitness statements identify him as the assailant, but a video clip shows other persons assaulting the victim and does not clearly identify the applicant. The applicant argued that the incident was a spontaneous act without pre‑meditated intent to kill and that his clean criminal record and short period of custody warranted bail. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's contentions regarding lack of intent and the inconclusive video evidence. The court found that, even if the prosecution's version is accepted, there is no proof of intent to cause death and the act appears to have been committed in the heat of passion. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the alleged act was spontaneous and lacking pre‑meditated intent.
- Whether the absence of clear eyewitness identification and the presence of a video clip exonerating the accused affect the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and duration of custody justify release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(2), 191(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- intent
- heat of passion
- video evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- pre‑meditation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30350 of 2026
Pratap Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Shubham
Singh
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. However, alongwith the instant bail application free true copy of the
bail rejection order passed by the court concerned has not been annexed
but considering the averment made in the supplementary affidavit dated
14.09.2026, the instant application is being heard.
3. Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.200 of 2026, under Sections 103(2),
191(2), 352 BNS, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, during
pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR and according to the FIR on the date of incident in a marriage
function suddenly dispute arose between applicant and deceased and
thereafter he by causing injury to him through kada (bracelet) committed
his murder but admittedly informant of the case was not the eye-witness.
6. He further argued, however there are some eye-witnesses who also
disclosed the name of applicant and reiterated the version of the FIR but
from the statements of some other eye-witnesses it reflect, there is video
BAIL No. 30350 of 2026
2
clip and in the video clip some persons were seen while they were making
assault upon the deceased and these witnesses after perusing the video
clip did not disclose the name of applicant and this fact again suggests, he
has been falsely made accused in the present matter.
7. He further argued, even considering the FIR and statements of the
witnesses it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention
to cause death of the deceased.
8. He further argued, applicant is not having any other criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.05.2026.
9. 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.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
11. However, applicant is named in the FIR and according to the FIR in a
marriage function on a sudden dispute applicant made assault upon the
deceased through his bracelet due to which he sustained injuries and died
but informant of the case was not the eye-witness.
12. Further, however there are number of eye-witnesses and they also
reiterated the version of the FIR but considering the prosecution story this
Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant that even if the prosecution story is accepted then also it cannot
be said that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the
deceased.
13. Further, even considering facts, it reflects, incident occurred suddenly
without any premeditation in heat of passion.
14. Further, even from the statements of informant and other witnesses it
also reflect, there is also one video clip of the incident and from the clip it
reflects, some persons were making assault upon the deceased but none of
the witnesses after perusing the clip disclosed the name of applicant
alongwith other accused who were visible in the video clip, therefore
BAIL No. 30350 of 2026
3
prima facie it reflects, from the video clip it could not be reflected that
applicant was also making assault upon the deceased alongwith others.
15. Further, applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 10.05.2026.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant - Pratap Kumar 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 16, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…