Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home … on 1 April, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:22921
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7483 of 2025
Surendra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ravindra Shukla, Vyas Narayan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Saurabh Kumar, Sushil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.150/ 2025, under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) BNS, Police Station – Kadipur, District – Sultanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 04.04.2025 has been lodged under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) and 103(1) BNS (Old Sections 307, 149, 148, 120(b) and 302 IPC), alleging therein that on 3.4.2025 at about 6.00 PM the son of the informant was chatting with his cousin brother Shubham outside the house then five named persons including the present applicant had come on two motorcycles at the place of incident and Sagar yadav, Monu Yadav and Ajay Nishad started firing upon son of the informant, due to which he fell on the ground, then Subham started running from the place. After hearing the noise, accused persons ran away from the place of incident.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. his name surfaced for the first time in the statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma, the allegation of firing has been levelled against the applicant, even the FSL report of the weapons used in the alleged crime shows that the weapons used in the crime belong to co-accused, namely, Ankit Yadav and Monu Yadav, which shows that the alleged witness improvised the case at the time of giving statement, whereas in the F.I.R. no role of firing has been assigned to the applicant.
6. It is further submitted that no recovery has been made from the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 07.04.2025.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of eight cases including the present case and details have been given in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 14.08.2025. The first case is Case Crime No.586/2007, Under Section 380/411 IPC and Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur, in which the bail has been granted by learned Court below. The second case is Case Crime No.187/2011, under Sections 323/352/504 I.P.C., Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in which till date neither any notice nor any summon has been served upon the applicant. The third case is Case Crime No.576/2011, under Section 3/4 U.P. Gunda Act, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in which by efflux of time the period of Zilabadar is over. The forth one is Case Crime No.284/2015, under Section 135(1)(E) Electricity Act, Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in which after depositing the amount in the Lok Adalat held on 08.09.2018 the case has been disposed of. The fifth case is Case Crime No.313/2017, under Section 120-B/302/34 I.P.C., Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, wherein the applicant has falsely been implicated only on the basis of the bayan majid of the complainant, who has assigned the role of conspiracy of the murder of the deceased, in which also the bail has been granted in the year 2018. The sixth case is Case Crime No.174/2018, under Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in which the bail has been granted by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 4.4.2019. The seventh case is Case Crime No.144/2023, under Section 323/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station – Akhand Nagar, District – Sultanpur, in which the police has taken signature of the accused on the form under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and after that till date no notice has been served upon the applicant and the eighth case is the present case.
8. He has further submitted and relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein it has been observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. on the basis of counter affidavit and learned counsel for the complainant on the basis of affidavit filed time to time have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and have submitted that the name of the applicant was taken by eye witness, which made out an offence against the applicant. The applicant is also having a long criminal history of eight cases including the present case.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the submission of the learned A.G.A. regarding the eight criminal cases against the applicant while opposing the bail application is not acceptable in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari (Supra), wherein it has been observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. In the present case it is found that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. His name surfaced for the first time in the statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma, who had assigned the role of firing upon nine accused persons i.e. six named accused persons and three not named persons including the present applicant but there are only two gun shot injuries upon the deceased. No recovery has been made from the applicant. The FSL report filed by A.G.A. shows that the weapons used in the crime belong to co-accused namely, Ankit Yadav and Monu Yadav, hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
11. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant Surendra Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
14. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
April 1, 2026
S. Kumar