Allahabad High Court
KAPILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Kapil, who had been in custody since October 2020 for alleged murder under IPC Sections 302 and 34. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had been detained for six years with only one witness examined, and that similarly situated co‑accused Rahul and Ajeet had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, highlighting the recovery of the alleged weapon from the applicant and his criminal history, which the applicant claimed had already been explained. The court examined the facts, noting the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and the lack of decisive evidence, and without expressing a view on guilt, found the case fit for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond and several conditions, with a clarification that the order does not comment on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for granting bail in a murder case pending trial?
- Does the prolonged pre‑trial detention and the granting of bail to co‑accused justify bail for the applicant?
- Do the recovery of the alleged weapon and the applicant's criminal history preclude bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 483
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- co‑accused
- weapon recovery
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42221 of 2023
Kapil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Imran Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondents
and perused the record.
2. Name of Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appears as
counsel for the first informant but he is not present. When the
matter was last taken up on 13.4.2026, he was not present and the
case was directed to be listed on 5.5.2026 with the observation
that in case no one appears on behalf of the fist informant on the
next date, the case shall be shall be heard in his absence in the
first call. Therefore, I proceed to hear the case.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
378 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, registered at Police
Station Daurala, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 7.10.2020. It is
submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the
applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on
merits. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused
BAIL No. 42221 of 2023
2
Rahul has already been granted bail in second bail application
whereas another co-accused Ajeet has also been granted bail by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the
applicant has been languishing in jail for the last six years and till
date only one witness has been examined. It is also submitted that
the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the applicant
has not explained his criminal history property. Learned AGA has
further submitted that the weapon of the offence has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused
Rahul Yadav.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal
history of the applicant has been explained property in the first bail
application and the same has also been explained in the present
application.
7. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant and his
first bail application has been rejected on merit, however, the
applicant has been languishing in jail for the last six years and till
date only one witness has been examined. Similarly placed co-
accused Rahul has already been granted bail in second bail
application whereas another co-accused Ajeet has also been
granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the role of
the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co-
accused and the alleged weapon of offence is said to have been
recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-
accused Rahul Yadav. As per allegation in the FIR, a phone call
was received on the mobile of Kuldeep, son of the informant
whereby he told the informant that the said call was made from the
co-accused Ajeet and he has called him at Sakauti market, as such
BAIL No. 42221 of 2023
3
Kuldeep left the house at about 2 p.m. on 30.08.2020. At about 3
p.m., nephew of the informant Arvind came crying at the house
stating that Kuldeep has been shot by somebody, as such
informant along with other villagers reached Police Station-Daraula
whereby he was informed that his son is at SDS Hospital,
Modipuram and he has expired. At the hospital, Sudhanshu s/o
Rambhool told the informant that Kuldeep had taken him along
with him, as applicant, (Kapil) and co-accused Rahul had asked to
meet him and thereby both of them reached Sakauti market, but
they could not find them. Subsequently, son of the informant called
the applicant on his mobile and he told him that they are at
Mandaripur village, as such both of them moved to Mandaripur
village and just before entering the village, co-accused Ajeet was
found standing near a tube-well, as such Kuldeep(deceased)
stopped and deboarded his motorcycle and started talking to the
applicant. In the meantime, two more persons namely Kapil (the
applicant) and Pawan also reached there and all the three accused
persons took out their pistols. Immediately, Kuldeep (deceased)
shouted and asked Sudhanshu to run away from the place of
occurrence thereby, both of them started running away. As they
reached near a sugarcane field, Sudhanshu heard gun shot and he
called the villagers, as such, Kuldeep was rushed to SDS Hospital.
After the said incident, younger son of the informant Sandeep had
told him that from the last few days, three persons namely the
applicant Kapil, Rahul and Ajeet used to roam about in the vicinity
of their house and the deceased used to get a bit worried on
seeing them. On being asked, deceased had told his brother that
the applicant and two other co-accused persons were blackmailing
him over a girl and might commit his murder also.
8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail
application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Kapil involved in the aforesaid case crime be
BAIL No. 42221 of 2023
4
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the
purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way
be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent
conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
said in this order.
May 5, 2026
Abhishek
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…