Hirdesh @ Chotu vs State Of U.P.
2026 Latest Caselaw 586 ALL

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 586 ALL
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Hirdesh @ Chotu vs State Of U.P. on 31 March, 2026

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:67020
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10831 of 2026   
 
   Hirdesh @ Chotu    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Gautam, Mohd. Shamim   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 64
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the applicant, counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2025, under Section 107 , 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Dakore, District- Jalaun, during the pendency of the trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 22.12.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation, section 108 B.N.S. was deleted and section 107 B.N.S. was added. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. No indecent photograph/video of the victim was recovered by the Investigating Officer. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. are not made out. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Hirdesh @ Chotu, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: