Allahabad High Court
HEMANT RAIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Hemant Rai, who is named in an FIR for murder under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 351(3) of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant argued that there was no eye‑witness to the alleged killing and that the only witnesses named the accused because of a prior quarrel with the deceased. He also pointed out that a co‑accused, Alok Prajapati, had already been released on bail in a similar case, and that his own prior criminal record involved only a minor offence. The State opposed bail but did not rebut the applicant’s factual contentions. After reviewing the record, the Court held that, given the lack of direct evidence and the parity with the co‑accused’s bail, the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where there is no eye‑witness and the only evidence is testimonial identification arising from a prior quarrel.
- Whether the release of a co‑accused on bail and the applicant’s minor prior offence affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/25
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- eye‑witness
- co‑accused bail
- criminal history
- Arms Act
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8689 of 2026
Hemant Rai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Kumar Rai, Janardan Yadav,
Manikant Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jagadamba Gupta
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.
2. Heard Sri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rajnikant Rai, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No.335 of 2025, under Sections 3(5),
103(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Baradah,
District Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR alongwith co-accused Alok Prajapati but admittedly informant
of the case was not the eye-witness
5. He further submits, there is no eye-witness account and all the
witnesses disclosed the name of accused only because earlier on the date
and time of incident they were having quarrel with the deceased.
6. He next submits, even co-accused Alok Prajapati has been released on
bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.154 of 2026 and case of
applicant is at par with him.
7. He further argued, however apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor
BAIL No. 8689 of 2026
2
offence.
8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
10.11.2025 i.e. for last 10 months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
11. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith co-accused Alok
Prajapati but it reflects, neither informant nor anyone could witness the
real incident of murder.
12. Further, even co-accused Alok Prajapati has been released on bail by
co-ordinate Bench of this Court and case of applicant is at par with him.
13. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence.
14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 i.e.
for last 10 months.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Hemant Rai 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
BAIL No. 8689 of 2026
3
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.
18. 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.
19. 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 18, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…