Allahabad High Court

PANCHAM GOND @ ABHISHEK GONDversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pancham Gond (also known as Abhishek Gond) in a murder case (Crime No. 152 of 2026) involving firearm injuries. The applicant argued that he was merely a co-accused, that the eye‑witness statement did not implicate him, and that the principal accused was another co‑accused, Nikki. He also highlighted that a co‑accused, Mulayam Gond, had already been released on bail and that his own 29 prior cases were all thefts, alleging police hostility. The State opposed bail, labeling the applicant a hardened criminal, but did not dispute the factual contentions. Relying on the settled principle that antecedents are only one factor and citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024), the court held that bail should not be denied merely on criminal history and granted the applicant bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

The applicant's right to bail despite a criminal history of 29 prior theft cases.
Whether the presence of antecedents justifies denial of bail in a murder case where the applicant's role appears peripheral.
The relevance of the co‑accused's bail status to the applicant's bail application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 315, 3(5), 351(3), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal antecedents
murder
firearm injury
Indian Penal Code
Supreme Court precedent
co‑accused
prima facie case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33235 of 2026

Pancham Gond @ Abhishek Gond
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Kumar Shukla, Rajkapoor
Upadhyay
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. Heard Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 315, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Gauri Bazar,
District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is
named in the FIR along with five others but it reflects that informant of the
case was not the eye witness and he lodged FIR of the present case on the
basis of suspicion.

5. He further submits that however, during investigation Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of one Sanjeev Yadav, who claimed himself
to be eye witness but from his statement it could not be reflected that
applicant in any manner involved in commission of the present crime. He
next submits that according to this witness, co-accused Nikki was the
principal accused, who by causing firearm injuries committed the murder.
He next submits that even post mortem report suggests that deceased died
due to firearm injuries.

6. He further submits, even after considering the entire facts of the case in
detail co-accused Mulayam Gond, who was also named in the FIR has been
BAIL No. 33235 of 2026
2

released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page-99
of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.09.2026 filed in support of instant
bail application and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of 29 other cases but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application. He further submits, all the cases
were of theft and it reflects, local police is highly inimical with the applicant
and used to implicate him during investigation in the cases of theft.

8. He further submits, considering the facts of the case and nature of
criminal history of the applicant, it is not proper to withhold the bail
application of the applicant merely on the basis of criminal history.

9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
27.06.2026.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
applicant appears to be hardened criminal and apart from the present case he
is having criminal history of 29 other cases but could not dispute the fact that
all the previous cases were of theft. He also could not dispute the other
argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

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

12. However, applicant is named in the FIR but from the record it reflects,
co-accused Nikki was the prime accused, who by causing firearm injury
committed the murder of the deceased.

13. Further, co-accused Mulayam Gond who was also named in the FIR has
been released on bail by this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par
with him.

14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of 29 cases but all the cases were of theft and it reflects, in
all the cases applicant has been made accused by the police during
investigation. Considering the criminal history of the applicant coupled with
the facts of the case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withhold the
instant bail application merely on the basis of criminal history of the
applicant.
BAIL No. 33235 of 2026
3

15. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then
ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history bail application of an
accused should not be dismissed.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 also observed as follows:-

"10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several
considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the
accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and
period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail.
There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long
incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a
given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused
are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can
grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents......."

17. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.06.2026.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant - Pancham Gond @ Abhishek Gond 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.

21. 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.
BAIL No. 33235 of 2026
4

22. 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 18, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…