Allahabad High Court

SANDEEP CHAUDHARY ALIAS SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail as the prosecution case prima facie stands and the delayed witness statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage.

Summary

The applicant, Sandeep Chaudhary, sought bail in a murder case (Crime No. 360 of 2026) involving the death of his father‑in‑law and injuries to his wife. He alleged that the FIR and witness statements were false, pointing to a five‑day delay in recording statements and a hospital register noting "unknown persons" caused the injuries. The prosecution, represented by the informant’s counsel, argued that the applicant’s wife and the deceased’s wife, both natural witnesses, corroborated the FIR, and that the delay does not undermine their credibility. The court examined the seriousness of the charges under IPC sections 103, 115, 118, 333, 351, 352 and the Arms Act, and noted that the applicant had been in custody for two months with no prior criminal record. Concluding that the prosecution case prima facie stands and the delayed statements cannot be disbelieved at the bail stage, the court rejected the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite serious murder and related charges.
Whether the five‑day delay in recording witness statements renders them unreliable for bail consideration.
Whether the hospital record indicating "unknown persons" creates sufficient doubt to merit bail.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history influences the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 4/25
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 118(2), 333, 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
Arms Act
witness statements
prima facie
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33151 of 2026

Sandeep Chaudhary Alias Sandeep Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aanya Verma, Alok Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Singh, G.A., Jitendra Singh

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate submitted that on 16.9.2026 i.e.
yesterday he has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of
this Court and therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list.

2. Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Jitendra
Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned
Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 360 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(2),
333, 351(3) and 352 BNS and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Modi Nagar,
District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is
named in the FIR and according to the FIR he by inflicting injuries
committed the murder of his father in law and even caused injury to his wife
but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that admittedly informant, the son of the deceased
was not the eye witness.

6. He further submitted that however as per prosecution wife of the applicant
Monika and her mother were the eye witnesses and even Monika the
daughter of the deceased also sustained injuries and they in their statements
recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR and stated
against the applicant but their statements were recorded after five days and
no explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer in this regard and
BAIL No. 33151 of 2026
2

this fact casts serious doubt on their statements.

7. He further submitted that even as per prosecution after the incident
informant i.e. son of the deceased had taken him to the hospital and at the
time of admission he informed in the hospital that some unknown persons
inflicted knife injuries to him and this fact is evident from page 45 of the
paper book and this fact again casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

8. He further submitted that applicant is son in law of the deceased and
however his dispute was pending with his wife but his dispute was not of
such nature due to which he would commit murder of his father in law.

9. He further submitted that from the record of the case it reflects some
unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased and as dispute
between husband and wife was pending, therefore, applicant who was son in
law of the deceased has been made accused in the present matter by his
brother in law who was not even present at spot.

10. He further submitted that applicant is innocent and he is having no
previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since
15.7.2026.

11. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts,
applicant may be enlarged on bail.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is son in
law of the deceased and he is husband of the injured-Monika and as per
allegation dispute was pending between applicant and his wife and on the
date of incident he entered in the house and inflicted knife injuries to his
father in law due to which he died and even in the incident his wife Monika
also sustained injuries and therefore, allegation levelled against the applicant
are very serious.

13. They further submitted that however, there is delay of five days in
recording the statements of eye witnesses i.e. wife of the applicant and his
mother in law but they were natural witnesses and their presence in the
house cannot be doubted at this stage and merely on this ground their
statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage.

14. They further submitted that however from the record of the hospital
BAIL No. 33151 of 2026
3

where deceased was admitted before his death it reflects, according to the
register of the hospital some unknown persons inflicted knife injuries to the
deceased but merely on this ground also entire prosecution case, at this stage
cannot be disbelieved and this fact can only be properly appreciated by the
trial court during trial.

15. They further submitted that considering the statements of the wife of the
deceased and wife of the applicant who was also injured of the case, prima
facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.

16. They further submitted that even in the present matter applicant is in jail
since 15.7.2026 i.e. only for two months.

17. They further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case,
instant bail application may be dismissed.

18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

19. Applicant is son in law of the deceased and as per allegation his dispute
was pending with his wife and on the date of incident he after entering in his
house by causing knife injury committed his murder and even in the incident
his wife Monika also sustained injuries and therefore, allegation levelled
against the applicant are very serious.

20. Further, from the statements of the wife of the deceased and wife of the
applicant who is also injured it reflect, they reiterated the version of the FIR
which was lodged by the son of the deceased who was though not the eye
witness. Considering their statements, prima facie, it cannot be said that
applicant is innocent.

21. Further, however statements of both the witnesses i.e. wife of the
deceased and wife of the applicant were recorded after five days but this
Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
informant and learned AGA that merely on this ground at this stage, their
statements cannot be disbelieved.

22. Further however from the record of the hospital it reflects, when
deceased was admitted in the hospital before his death by the informant then
in the register of the hospital it was noted that some unknown persons
caused knife injuries to him but in considered view of this Court merely on
BAIL No. 33151 of 2026
4

this ground also the statements of the alleged eye witnesses who prima facie
appear to be natural witnesses cannot be disbelieved, at this stage and effect
of such discrepancy can only be properly appreciated by the trial court
during trial. In view of this Court considering the facts of the case, prima
facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.

23. Further, even in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.7.2026
i.e. only for last two months.

24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

25. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.

26. 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.

September 17, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…