Allahabad High Court

ANMOL SINGH @ CHHANGURversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not produced cogent evidence and the accused has no prior criminal record.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Anmol Singh @ Chhangur in a murder case (Crime No. 130 of 2026). The applicant was named in the FIR, but the prosecution's case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, a confessional statement, and the recovery of a wooden stick pointed out by the accused and co‑accused. The counsel argued that there was no other corroborative evidence and the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 21‑04‑2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual submissions. Finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case and noting the applicant's clean record, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the prosecution's evidence is limited to circumstantial material and a confessional statement.
Whether the absence of prior criminal history and the lack of cogent evidence justify the release of the accused on bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
murder
criminal history
personal bond
sureties
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33273 of 2026

Anmol Singh @ Chhangur
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Pramod Kumar Sahani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Pramod Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj
Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS,
Police Station Sarailakhansi, District Mau during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in
the FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence. He further submits, apart
from suspicion, as per prosecution, when applicant and co-accused were
arrested then on their pointing out one wooden stick was recovered, which
allegedly used in the crime. He next submits, except above evidence, there is
no other evidence against the applicant on record.

4. He further submits, in absence of any other corroborative evidence merely
on the basis of above evidence prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant
committed the murder of the deceased.

5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 21.04.2026.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
                                                           BAIL No. 33273 of 2026
                                 2


8. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and it reflects, except suspicion, confessional statement of
applicant recorded during investigation and recovery of wooden stick on the
pointing out of applicant and co-accused, there is no cogent evidence against
the applicant on record. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by
learned counsel for applicant that in absence of any other corroborative
evidence merely on the basis of above evidence prima facie it cannot be said
that applicant involved in the present crime.

9. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 21.04.2026.

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

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

12. Let the applicant - Anmol Singh @ Chhangur 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.

13. 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.

14. 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…