Allahabad High Court
Kailash Agarwal vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186933
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45829 of 2024
Kailash Agarwal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Gaurav Srivastav, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Murari Lal Jain
Reserved on: 8.10.2025 Delivered on: 17.10.2025
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Murari Lal Jai, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.103 of 2024, under Sections 302, 392, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kamla Nagar, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The informant instituted the FIR at the Police Station Kamla Nagar, District Agra on 27.5.2024 at 01:37 hours stating that on 26.5.2024 at about 10:30 a.m. he had gone to his son at St. John?s, Agra. His wife Manju Gupta (Guddo) and his niece Tammana, who is a mentally retarded girl, were present at the house.
5. At the time he returned back to his house at 09:30 p.m., he found it locked from the outside. He had one of the keys with him, as such, he opened the door and found his wife dead in the kitchen and the household items had gone topsy-turvy and found that she had injuries on her head and Dupatta was tied around her neck.
6. The almirah was found unlocked and the jewelry and cash etc. were found stolen.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The applicant is a absolutely innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.
8. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
9. The informant had given an information by dialing 112 which was registered as Event No.0502 and the police reached there, which was entered at GD no.51 dated 26.5.2024 at 10:00 p.m.
10. The postmortem report of the deceased indicated five injuries over her body and the cause of death was found to be ?asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling?.
11. The applicant was arrested on the information received from a squealer and a case U/s 3/25/28 Arms Act and 307 I.P.C. at P.S. Kamla Nagar, District Agra was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.104 of 2024 and at his confession, name of co-accused person Sonu Agrawal came up.
12. The police had shown a false recovery of Rs.25,000/- cash, bank passbook and ornaments belonging to the deceased person from the possession of the applicant on 28.5.2024.
13. The informant did not furnish any list of ornaments or articles stolen from the house rather he gave a list of the material stolen on 1.6.2024 much after the said recovery made from the possession of the applicant, which indicates false implication.
14. Even the said application, whereby the list of articles was given by the informant, mentions that he had identified the articles recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused person.
15. The Investigating Officer took the CCTV footage of the vicinity of the area and found that a suspected tempo (three wheeler) was visible in it and the persons who were travelling in it had muffled their faces.
16. The said tempo had the words ?DURO? transcribed on its back and side in bold letters, so it was identifiable. The applicant was found visible leaving the house at about 06:00 p.m. with a bag on his shoulder.
17. In another CCTV footage recovered from another house, co-accused persons Sonu Agrawal and Mohan Sharma were also visible in the vicinity. The said CCTV footage was saved in a pendrive and screenshot was also taken.
18. The instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is incomplete and could not reach to the conclusion that applicant had committed the said offence.
19. There is no motive for applicant to commit the said offence.
20. The informant had given an application before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (DDA), Court No.3, Agra, but the same was withdrawn on 11.7.2024, which indicates that nothing was looted from the house of the informant.
21. There is no test identification parade of the applicant conducted by any person and even the identification of ornaments is not as per law. A false recovery of cash and ornaments has been planted on the applicant.
22. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 31.5.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
23. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the test identification parade of the applicant is need not be done in the instant case as the informant or the witnesses have not seen him committing the offence.
24. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The applicant was visible in the CCTV footage leaving the house with a bag on his shoulder and co-accused persons were also visible in the CCTV footage.
25. The informant had identified the ornaments recovered from the possession of applicant and there is nothing on record to suggest that the informant had any animosity towards the applicant or any other accused person.
26. A gruesome murder of an aged old lady alongwith dacoity has been committed.
27. The recovery of the ornaments and cash from the applicant has been made immediately after the offence i.e. on 28.5.2024. As such, the parameters of Section 114 illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act are applicable to the case of the applicant. As such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
28. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is recovery of ornaments and cash from the possession of the applicant soon after the incident and he is visible in the CCTV footage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
29. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
30. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
31. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
October 17, 2025
Vikas Verma
