Court highlights eyewitness testimony, postmortem report, and delayed FIR as reasons to deny bail; directs improved police compliance and investigation quality
In a significant ruling dated September 1, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Sameer Jain, dismissed the bail application filed by Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo, accused of murder by firearm in a case registered at Srinagar Police Station, District Mahoba. The decision underscores the court's reliance on prima facie evidence, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports, while also addressing procedural concerns over police conduct and investigation quality.
The accused, Pushpraj Singh, has been in judicial custody since June 23, 2025, facing trial for the murder of a deceased individual allegedly shot by him during a scuffle. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of Priyanka, the sister of the deceased, who witnessed the incident and attributed the fatal firearm injury to the applicant. The postmortem report corroborated that the death was caused by the firearm injury. Despite the defense's argument that the applicant's side sustained injuries during the altercation, the court observed that such facts do not prima facie establish the accused's innocence.
One of the pivotal issues in the case was the delay in lodging an FIR by the applicant's side. The defense admitted that their FIR against the opposite party was filed only after 12 days through a court order under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023. The court considered this delay as indicative of an afterthought and viewed it skeptically at the bail stage.
Moreover, contradictions emerged concerning the timing and the number of shots fired. CCTV footage submitted during the investigation suggested that the deceased was alive until around 7 PM, whereas the prosecution claimed the shooting occurred at 6 PM. The footage also indicated seven gunshots, contrary to the prosecution's case that only one shot was fired by the applicant. The court clarified that such discrepancies are matters for the trial court to decide after detailed scrutiny.
The court also noted a video statement recorded by a journalist wherein the deceased named multiple accused, including the applicant, but did not explicitly state that Pushpraj Singh caused the fatal injury. While this statement did not conclusively prove innocence or guilt, it contributed to the overall prima facie evidence against the applicant.
During the hearing, the court expressed concerns about the quality and timeliness of police investigations in heinous crimes such as murder. The Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh was present and apologized for previous non-compliance with court orders. He assured that steps are being taken to enhance investigative standards and that police officers would adhere strictly to court directives in future bail matters.
Considering the gravity of the offense, the substantial prima facie evidence, the delayed FIR by the applicant's side, and the ongoing trial where the minimum punishment for murder is life imprisonment, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The judgment explicitly stated that the observations made were confined to the bail application and would not influence the merits of the trial.
This verdict reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach in granting bail in serious criminal cases, ensuring that prima facie evidence and procedural integrity guide bail decisions. It also signals a push towards improved police accountability in investigation and compliance with judicial orders.
Bottom Line:
Bail application rejected for murder accused considering prima facie evidence, including eyewitness testimony, postmortem report, delayed FIR by the applicant's side, and discrepancies in CCTV footage and video statement of deceased.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 103(1), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 173(4) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972543
