# Sunny v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 516
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10323 of 2026
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunny-v-state-of-u-p-54452
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 516
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10323 of 2026

Sunny ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether while preparing an inquest report u/s 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, it is necessary for the investigating officer to mention the name of accused allegedly
responsible for causing the death of deceased, and whether non-mentioning of accused's name in the inquest
report would create a doubt sufficient to entitle the accused-applicant to be enlarged on bail during pendency
of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 105, 194 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
103(1) and 61(2) - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 3/25/27 - Murder - Bail - Grant of - Inquest Report -
Non-mentioning of accused's name - Effect - Object and scope - The prosecution case was that
the accused-applicant allegedly fired upon the deceased at the gate of his housing society,
resulting in his death - The applicant was implicated under various provisions of BNS and Arms
Act - The applicant sought bail contending false implication, inconsistencies in the statements of
alleged eyewitnesses, non-mentioning of his name in inquest report, absence of initial
information regarding the assailant, and lack of incriminating material - The prosecution
opposed the bail application by submitting that several witnesses had seen the applicant at the
place of occurrence, his involvement was corroborated through electronic evidence and recovery
of weapon, and mere omission of accused's name in inquest report was not material.
Held: While preparing the inquest report there is no requirement of mentioning the name of accused who
caused the death of person, whose body is under examination - It is not in dispute that the presence of
applicant was found at the time of incident at 3:30 P.M. while he was making UPI payment at the shop
adjacent to the place of incident, and the incident in question at 5:30 P.M. was seen by several other
witnesses who have made specific allegation of firing against the applicant, and there is a recovery of weapon
from the applicant allegedly used in incident, which was duly substantiated by conducting a videography as
per s. 105 BNSS, and considering the gravity of offence and role of applicant, the Court refused to release the
applicant on bail - Accordingly, bail application rejected. [Paras 10 to 12] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 518 - referred
to

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959
4 All. Sunny Vs. State of U.P.
517
List of Keywords
Bail Application; s. 105 BNSS, 2023; B.N.S, 2023; Arms Act, 1959; Innocent person; Falsely implicated; Fired
upon deceased at gate of his housing society; First informant himself claimed to be an eye-witness; In site
plan place where accused was sitting at the time of incident was not mentioned; G.D. Report; Some unknown
person fired upon deceased; No fard of motorcycle was prepared by police; Reiki of deceased; Substantiated
by UPI payment; Father brought deceased to hospital; Panch witness; Inquest of dead body; Postmortem
report showed firearm injuries; Statement of injured; On the basis of doubt applicant was witness of murder;
Blind murder; Recovery of country made pistol; Prima facie opinion about apparent cause of death; Wounds;
Fractures; Bruises; Marks of Injury; Weapon used to inflict such injuries; Bail application rejected.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 10323 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2025, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gautam
Buddh Nagar in Case Crime No. 100 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant(s):
Raghvendra Prakash, Sr. Advocate

Advs. for the Opposite Party(s)
G.A., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghvendra Prakash,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first
informant, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.100
of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police
Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person
and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that as per the
prosecution story, the applicant is alleged to have fired upon the deceased Vishal and killed him at
the gate of his housing society. He further submitted that though the first informant himself claimed
to be an eye-witness of the incident in his statement, but in the site plan, the place where he was
sitting at the time of incident was not mentioned. He further submitted that as per the G.D. report,
information regarding the incident in question was also received by the police through some
unknown person and as per the G.D. report dated 12.05.2025 at 7:50 P.M., some unknown person
fired upon the deceased Vishal, and his father has taken him to the hospital, therefore, till the
deceased was taken to the hospital, exact person who has fired upon the deceased was not known.
He next submitted that as per the hospital records, the deceased was admitted in the hospital on
12.05.2025. wherein it was mentioned that his father brought him to the hospital and he told that
some unknown person fired upon the deceased. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the
father of first informant Gyani was the one of the panch witnesses of inquest but name of the
applicant was not mentioned as assailant instead unknown assailant was mentioned, therefore, till
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the time of inquest actual name of the accused was not known and subsequently applicant was
falsely nominated as accused. He further submitted that though all the alleged eye-witnesses clearly
stated that the present applicant fired upon the deceased Vishal, but post-mortem report shows that
the deceased Vishal received two firearm injuries and such fact was not mentioned in the statement
of the injured. He further submitted that it is a case of blind murder, and on the basis of doubt, as
the applicant was one of the witness of murder case in which the deceased was accused, the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the site plan it is
mentioned that the applicant along with unknown person came on the spot on motorcycle and fired
upon the deceased and run away on motorcycle, but no 'fard' of the motorcycle was prepared by the
police. There is no incriminating material against the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation/trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that not only the father but there are several other persons
have seen the present applicant while he was doing 'Reiki' of the deceased, and this fact has been
duly substantiated by the UPI payment being made by the applicant at 3:30 P.M. at the shop
adjacent to the place of incident. They further submitted that the father of the deceased lodged the
FIR making specific allegation against the applicant and also clearly stated in his statement about
the role of the applicant and also claiming himself as a witness, and merely not mentioning the
place in site plan where the applicant was present at the time of incident is not relevant, and the
same is a matter of trial. It is further submitted that mentioning the name of accused in inquest is
not necessary. They further submitted that on pointing out of the applicant, a country made pistol
(.32 bore) was recovered and the aforesaid recovery was duly substantiated by conducting a
videography as per Section 105 BNSS, therefore, the aforesaid recovery cannot be disputed. They
also submitted that the father of the deceased himself brought the deceased to the hospital, and in
his absence someone informed the police about the incident, who is expected to mention the name
of the actual accused. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. a legal question
arises whether it is necessary to mention the name of accused who allegedly killed the deceased
while preparing the inquest of the dead-both.

7. Section 194 of BNSS provides that when an officer in-charge of police or other police
officer especially empowered by the State Government receives information that a person has been
killed by another or has died under the circumstances, raising reasonable suspicion that some other
person has committed an offence then he shall proceed to the place where the dead-body of the
deceased person is found then in presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the
neighbourhood, he shall draw up a report/ inquest apparent cause of death, describing such wounds,
fractures, bruises and other marks of injury found on the body and stating in what manner or by
what weapon or instrument such marks appear to have been inflicted. This report shall be assigned
by such police officer and other persons who concur with the aforesaid observation regarding the
dead-body. If there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or for other reason then the police
4 All. Sunny Vs. State of U.P.
519
officer may consider it expedient and he shall forward the dead-body to the nearest Civil Surgeon
or other qualified medical officer appointed by the State Government with a view to its being
examined.

8. Section 194 BNSS is quoted as under:

"(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some State police officer specially
empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has
committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an
accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person
has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive
Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule made by the
State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate,
shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of
two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw
up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds. fractures, bruises, and other
marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or
instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of
them as concur therein, and shall he forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional
Magistrate within twenty-four hours.

(3) When-

(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or

(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in
relation to such woman; or

(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any
relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or

(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or

(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do,

he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf,
forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other
qualified medical person appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the
weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the
road as would render such examination useless.

(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District
Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered
in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate."

9. From a perusal of Section 194 BNSS, it is clear that the only purpose of inquest is to make a
prima facie opinion about the apparent cause of death and noting the injuries i.e. wounds, fractures,
bruises and other marks of injury found on the body, possible cause of death including the weapon
used to inflict such injuries and after preparation of such report by the concerned officer, it shall be
signed by him as well as other persons who are present and concur the aforesaid opinion, therefore,
there is no statutory requirement regarding mentioning the name of accused in the inquest report.
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in the case of Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh
and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 518. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is
quoted below:

"The High Court has also held that the details about the occurrence were not mentioned
in the inquest report which showed that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when the
inquest report was prepared and this feature of the case carried weight in favour of the accused.
We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest
and preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174 Cr.P.C. The heading of the Section is
"Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc." Sub-section (1) of this Section provides that when
the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the
State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has
been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he
shall immediately give information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall proceed to the
place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more
respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of
the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury
as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any),
such marks appear to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police officer
shall record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds as may be found on the body and
also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted and this has to be done
in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The Section does not
contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be
mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the
apparent cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some
machinery, etc. The scope and purpose of Section 174 Cr.P.C. was explained by this Court in
Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to
reproduce the same.

"The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the
proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an
unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he
was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. Neither in
practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report.

It is therefore not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report.
Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court."

10. In view of above analysis, this Court observes that while preparing the inquest report there
is no requirement of mentioning the name of the accused who caused the death of the person,
whose body is under examination.

11. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account that it is not in dispute that the presence of the applicant was found at the time of incident
at 3:30 P.M. while he was making UPI payment at the shop adjacent to the place of incident, and
4 All. Rohit Patel Vs. State of U.P.
521
the incident in question at 5:30 P.M. was seen by several other witnesses who have made specific
allegation of firing against the applicant, and there is a recovery of weapon from the applicant
allegedly used in the incident in question, which was duly substantiated by conducting a
videography as per Section 105 BNSS, and considering the gravity of the offence and role of the
applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail, at this stage.

12. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 521
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29240 of 2025

Rohit Patel ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether fracture of the hyoid bone is an indispensable requirement for establishing a case of
strangulation; and whether delay in recording the statements of witnesses during investigation, also having
regard to the postmortem report, and surrounding circumstances emerging from the record would, by itself,
be fatal to the prosecution case so as to entitle the accused-applicant to be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s 103(1) - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - s. 109 -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s. 180 - Bail - Murder - Strangulation - Absence of
fracture of hyoid bone - Whether fatal to prosecution case - Interpretation - The prosecution
case was that the applicant, being the husband of deceased, had allegedly quarrelled with and
assaulted her on previous occasions, regarding which an FIR had earlier been lodged -
Subsequently, after compromise between the parties, the deceased started residing with the
applicant - It was alleged that on 19.03.2025, the applicant murdered his wife in collusion with
other accused persons - During investigation, the other accused persons were exonerated and
charge-sheet was submitted only against the present applicant - The applicant sought bail
contending that the postmortem report indicating strangulation was doubtful as the hyoid bone
was intact, there was no eyewitness account, and delayed recording of witness statements
created doubt in the prosecution case - The informant and State opposed the bail application by
relying upon the medical evidence, witness statements, and surrounding circumstances.
Held: In the instant case, FIR was registered on 20.03.2025 and statement of applicant's nephew was
recorded on 27.03.2025 and the statement of daughter of applicant was recorded on 18.04.2025 as both the
children were under shock because of murder of deceased - Therefore, some delay cannot be said to be fatal
to the prosecution case - Even otherwise such issues are to be decided during trial not at the stage of bail - It
is not in dispute that as per postmortem report, the cause of death is strangulation and other injuries are also
present on the body of deceased which shows that she resisted at the time of strangulation - It is also clear