Allahabad High Court

OMSARANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no cogent evidence linking him to the murder.

Summary

The applicant, Omsaran, filed a bail application in a murder case (Crime No. 544 of 2025) in which he is accused of killing his wife. He contended that he was the informant who lodged the FIR after his wife was assaulted and that the prosecution's case is based solely on suspicion of an illicit relationship, with no substantive evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's factual narrative. The court observed that, apart from the applicant's own statement, there is no cogent evidence or witness testimony establishing his guilt, and the investigating officer failed to substantiate the alleged relationship. The applicant also has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for over a year. Considering the lack of material evidence and the applicant's cooperation with the police, the court concluded that bail is appropriate. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the only evidence against the accused is suspicion and no substantive proof of involvement in the murder.
Whether the applicant's status as the informant and lack of prior criminal record justify bail.
Whether the alleged illicit relationship alleged by the prosecution, without corroboration, is sufficient ground to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 4/25
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 230, 238(B), 240, 61(2)

Subjects

murder
bail
suspicion
lack of evidence
informant
husband of deceased
Indian Penal Code
Arms Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 896 of 2026

Omsaran
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amar Bahadur Maurya, Devendra
Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant

and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.544 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
230, 238(B), 240, 61(2) BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station
Aonla, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is
husband of the deceased and he lodged the FIR of the present case and
according to the FIR lodged by him when he was going alongwith his
wife i.e. deceased then some unknown miscreants committed loot and
made assault upon his wife due to which she sustained injuries and died
but during investigation without any cogent evidence merely on the basis
of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He next submits, according to the prosecution applicant developed
relationship with some other lady therefore he committed murder of his
wife and cooked up a false story of loot and lodged FIR against unknown
person but during investigation I.O. could not trace out any such lady who
was in relationship with the applicant.

5. He further argued, applicant is victim of the case and in the alleged
incident he lost his wife and he is informant of the case but during
BAIL No. 896 of 2026
2

investigation without any cogent evidence he has been made accused in
the present matter.

6. He further argued, except doubt and suspicion there is no cogent
evidence against the applicant which can prima facie connect the
applicant with the instant crime.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any other criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 31.07.2025 i.e. for last more
than a year.

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

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

10. However, applicant is husband of the deceased but he himself lodged
the FIR of the present case against unknown person with regard to the
murder of his wife by unknown miscreants. It reflects, during
investigation he has been made accused in the present matter on the
ground that he was having illicit relationship with some other lady and
therefore he committed murder of his wife but it reflects, except statement
of applicant recorded by the I.O. there is no other cogent evidence against
him on record. From the record it also reflects, even during investigation
I.O. could not even make any query from the lady with whom allegedly
applicant was having relationship. It reflects, prima facie there is no
cogent evidence which can suggest, applicant committed the murder of
the deceased.

11. Further, from the record it also reflects, after the incident applicant
immediately informed his friend who informed the police and thereafter
police arrived at spot and this shows the bona fide of the applicant.

12. Further, applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 31.07.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
BAIL No. 896 of 2026
3

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

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

15. Let the applicant - Omsaran 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…