Allahabad High Court
PRABHUSHEKHAR @ PRABHUSHEKHversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
Since the case involves only a property dispute with no injury and the accused has no prior criminal record, bail is warranted despite the alleged firing.
Summary
The accused, Prabhushekhar, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 133 of 2026) involving alleged firing of a licensed gun during a property dispute in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR alleged that he opened fire after a dispute over a plot of land, but the counsel argued that the matter was essentially a civil property dispute with no injury and that the accused had no prior criminal history. The State opposed bail, citing the recovery of an empty cartridge and the specific allegation of firing. The Court examined the submissions, noted the absence of any injury and the nature of the dispute, and decided that these factors outweighed the seriousness of the alleged offence. Consequently, the bail application was allowed without addressing the merits of the case, subject to a personal bond and sureties. The Court also directed the accused to cooperate with the investigation for a speedy disposal.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 61(2), 351(4), 109(1) of the IPC and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act in a case arising from a property dispute with no injury.
- Whether the presence of an empty cartridge and the allegation of firing a licensed gun preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27, 30
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 351(4), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- property dispute
- arms act
- IPC sections 61 351 109
- no injury
- criminal procedure
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35114 of 2026
Prabhushekhar @ Prabhushekh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home
Government Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Rajesh
Kumar, Satyam Mishra
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri
Basant Yadav, learned counsel holding brief appeared for informant and
learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Prabhushekhar @ Prabhushekh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime
No. 133 of 2026, under Sections 61(2), 351(4), 109(1) BNS and Section
27/30 Arms Act, P.S.- Sakeet, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 22.08.2026 lodged by
the Vikas Chauhan with the allegation against five named persons
including the accused applicant that the informant has purchased one of
the plot from the relative of the accused applicant and there was
compromise between the parties as to the dispute about the property.
Later on, while the informant started construction over the same, the
accused persons came and started assaulting them. The allegations
specifically on the accused applicant that he has opened fire with the
licensed gun of his uncle. It is the contention of learned counsel that it is
no injury case. The accused applicant has no criminal history.
Investigation is continuing and applicant is co-operating in the
investigation. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since
28.08.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
BAIL No. 35114 of 2026
2
4. Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. for State opposed
the bail application and submit that an empty cartridge has been recovered
from the place of incident. There is specific allegation against the accused
applicant that he has opened fire from the licenced gun. There is property
dispute. Hence, seek rejection of the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that no injury case and there is a property dispute between
the parties, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
October 1, 2026
Sharad/-
Digitally signed by :-
SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…