Allahabad High Court

HEMANTversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that, given the questionable FIR, prolonged pre‑trial detention, and parity with a co‑accused granted bail, the applicant was entitled to bail.

Summary

Hemant was arrested in connection with a FIR alleging that he and nine others opened indiscriminate fire on 5 February 2026, resulting in the death of a man whose maternal grandfather, Shyamveer Singh, is the sole eyewitness. The applicant contended that the FIR was false, filed nine hours after the incident, and that the eyewitness was actually an inquest witness, citing a General Diary entry and inquest report to support his claim. He also pointed out that a co‑accused, Ramesh Chandra, had been granted bail in a similar case and that Hemant had been in custody for more than seven months despite the alleged minor nature of two of his other pending cases. The State opposed bail but did not refute the factual contentions. The court, after considering the doubtful credibility of the FIR, the lengthy pre‑trial detention, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, concluded that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, Hemant was released on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite serious charges of murder and offences under the Arms Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and alleged falsity of the allegations affect bail eligibility.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and the fact that a co‑accused was granted bail influence the decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 27, 3
Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 190, 191, 351, 3(5) BNS

Subjects

bail
murder
arms act
pre‑trial detention
FIR delay
false allegations
criminal history

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34389 of 2026

Hemant
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Garun Pal Singh, Mahipal 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. Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190,
103(1), 351(3) and 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station
Sadabad, District Hathras during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in
the FIR along with nine others and according to the FIR named accused
persons including applicant along with 2-3 unknown associates opened
indiscriminate firing on 05.02.2026 and due to the fire made by them brother
of informant sustained firearm injuries and died at spot and in the FIR it has
been mentioned that one Shyamveer Singh witnessed the incident but entire
allegations leveled against applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits, applicant is innocent and actually nobody could see
the real incident but when dead body of the deceased was found then
subsequently due to previous enmity he has been made accused in the
present matter along with others.

6. He further submits, the above fact also finds support from the information
given by one Jeetu Rana with regard to deceased which shows that one dead
BAIL No. 34389 of 2026
2

body was lying near Chandra Farm house and his information has been
noted in the general diary dated 05.02.2026 time 14.23 hours, which has
been annexed at page-41 of the paper-book and on his information inquest
was conducted on 05.02.2026 at 04.40 PM, which has been annexed at page-
45 of the paper-book and from the inquest report it reflects, Shyamveer
Singh, the alleged sole eye witness was one of the inquest witness and
therefore above G.D. Entry dated 05.05.2026 and inquest report of the
deceased completely belies the version of the FIR and these two documents
also support the defence version that nobody could see the real incident.

7. He further submits, even after the inquest an application was moved by
sole eye witness Shyamveer Singh for conducting the post mortem and this
Shyamveer Singh is the maternal grand father of the deceased.

8. He further submits, it reflects, when informant side could not become
aware about the assailants then afterthought on 05.02.2026 at 23.27 hours
i.e. after several hours from the information given by Jeetu Rana with regard
to death of the deceased and the inquest, FIR of the present case was lodged
and this fact again shows FIR is nothing but bundle of false facts and
applicant has been made accused in the present matter only due to previous
enmity.

9. He further submits, co-accused Ramesh Chandra, who was also named in
the FIR along with applicant has been released on bail by this Court with a
very detailed and reasoned order dated 08.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 22905 of 2026 and case of applicant is at par with him.

10. He further submits that apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of four other cases but out of four cases in two cases he has
been made accused at the time of his arrest in the present matter. He next
submits that previous two cases were of minor in nature.

11. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since
16.02.2026 i.e. for last more than seven months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 34389 of 2026
3

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

14. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the
deceased in broad daylight along with others by causing firearm injuries to
him and incident has been witnessed by one Shyamveer Singh, who was
maternal grand father of the deceased but FIR of the present case was lodged
on 05.02.2026 at 23.27 hours while incident is said to have been occurred on
05.02.2026 at about 2.00 PM, therefore, FIR of the present case has been
lodged after about 9.30 hours.

15. Record further suggests that one Jeetu Rana gave an information to the
police on 05.02.2026 at 14.23 hours that a dead body is lying near Chandra
Farm house which was of the deceased and thereafter inquest was conducted
and in the inquest Shyamveer Singh, the sole eye witness was also the Panch
witness. Further, it also reflects, after the inquest an application was moved
by Shyamveer for post mortem of the deceased and thereafter FIR of the
present case was lodged at 23.27 hours therefore prima facie FIR appears to
be doubtful and even prima facie it could not be reflected Shyamveer was
the eye witness. Considering these facts, argument advanced by learned
counsel for applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and
subsequently after nine hours informant due to previous enmity lodged FIR
of the present case cannot be ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, co-accused Ramesh Chandra, who was also named in the FIR
along with applicant has been released on bail by this Court with a very
detailed and reasoned order and case of applicant is at par with him.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of four other cases but in two cases he has been made
accused at the time of his arrest in the present matter.

18. Record further suggests that previous two cases of the applicant were of
minor in nature.

19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.02.2026 i.e. for
last more than seven months.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
BAIL No. 34389 of 2026
4

above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

22. Let the applicant- Hemant 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 28, 2026
SKM

Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…