High Court

incident to the deceased's father, Rishabh Srivastava, Avinash Tiwari, Rahul Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Luvkush Yadav have stated that all of them were present at the time of incident and they have witnessed both the accused persons assaulting the deceased with knifes.

6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of "death statement of the patients" issued by Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow which mentions that the dead body of the deceased had been brought by the informant himself on 18.06.2023 at 05:20 AM. On the strength of the aforesaid document, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the narration in the FIR that the informant had been informed about death of his son by his son's friend Jai Jaiswal and he found dead body of his son upon reaching the Hospital, stands belied by this document. The death statement of the patient was filled by the Doctor on duty and the discrepancy in narration made by the Doctor and the statement in the FIR, does not establish innocence of the applicant, when numerous eye-witnesses have categorically stated that they had seen the applicant and co-accused persons causing multiple knife injuries on the body of the deceased, which statements are corroborated by the postmortem report which mentions as many as 18 stab wounds on the dead body.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that Jai Jaiswal had stated that all the persons present there were consuming alcohol. As all of them had consumed alcohol, they would not have been in a condition to understand the things correctly and their statements become meaningless. This statement of the learned counsel for the applicant also does not merit acceptance as it cannot be said that any person who consumes alcohol, becomes unable of understanding the things.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that no motive has been assigned against the applicant and the only thing which has been said that the other co-accused persons had borrowed some money from one Rishabh. The statements prima facie establish that a dispute had taken place between co- accused Abhay Pratap Singh and Rishabh when the latter demanded return of some money lent by him whereupon Abhay Pratap Singh and the applicant came to the spot armed with knives and they killed the victim. In the these circumstances, it can't be accepted that there was no motive. Moreover, when there is overwhelming direct ocular evidence, the absence of motive becomes meaningless.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant's presence at the spot could not be established from a perusal of the CCTV footage.

10. The CCTV footage has been taken from a place outside the house in which the incident took place. Numerous persons who have witnessed the incident taking place inside the house have categorically stated about the involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Therefore, the applicant being identified in CCTV footage from a place outside the place of occurrence would not be conclusive so as to override the overwhelming evidence of statements of numerous eye- witnesses. Moreover, it is recorded in the case diary that two persons carrying something were seen going inside the house and they were seen coming outside the house in close proximity of the alleged time of the incident. Nobody had stated that the persons seen did not include the applicant. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel also does not deserves acceptance and the same is rejected.

11. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased and the statement of the eye- witnesses, I am of the view that the facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion by this court by enlarging the applicant on bail

12. This bail application is accordingly rejected. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

incident to the deceased's father, Rishabh Srivastava, Avinash Tiwari, Rahul Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Luvkush Yadav have stated that all of them were present at the time of incident and they have witnessed both the accused persons assaulting the deceased with knifes.

6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of "death statement of the patients" issued by Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow which mentions that the dead body of the deceased had been brought by the informant himself on 18.06.2023 at 05:20 AM. On the strength of the aforesaid document, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the narration in the FIR that the informant had been informed about death of his son by his son's friend Jai Jaiswal and he found dead body of his son upon reaching the Hospital, stands belied by this document. The death statement of the patient was filled by the Doctor on duty and the discrepancy in narration made by the Doctor and the statement in the FIR, does not establish innocence of the applicant, when numerous eye-witnesses have categorically stated that they had seen the applicant and co-accused persons causing multiple knife injuries on the body of the deceased, which statements are corroborated by the postmortem report which mentions as many as 18 stab wounds on the dead body.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that Jai Jaiswal had stated that all the persons present there were consuming alcohol. As all of them had consumed alcohol, they would not have been in a condition to understand the things correctly and their statements become meaningless. This statement of the learned counsel for the applicant also does not merit acceptance as it cannot be said that any person who consumes alcohol, becomes unable of understanding the things.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that no motive has been assigned against the applicant and the only thing which has been said that the other co-accused persons had borrowed some money from one Rishabh. The statements prima facie establish that a dispute had taken place between co- accused Abhay Pratap Singh and Rishabh when the latter demanded return of some money lent by him whereupon Abhay Pratap Singh and the applicant came to the spot armed with knives and they killed the victim. In the these circumstances, it can't be accepted that there was no motive. Moreover, when there is overwhelming direct ocular evidence, the absence of motive becomes meaningless.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant's presence at the spot could not be established from a perusal of the CCTV footage.

10. The CCTV footage has been taken from a place outside the house in which the incident took place. Numerous persons who have witnessed the incident taking place inside the house have categorically stated about the involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Therefore, the applicant being identified in CCTV footage from a place outside the place of occurrence would not be conclusive so as to override the overwhelming evidence of statements of numerous eye- witnesses. Moreover, it is recorded in the case diary that two persons carrying something were seen going inside the house and they were seen coming outside the house in close proximity of the alleged time of the incident. Nobody had stated that the persons seen did not include the applicant. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel also does not deserves acceptance and the same is rejected.

11. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased and the statement of the eye- witnesses, I am of the view that the facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion by this court by enlarging the applicant on bail

12. This bail application is accordingly rejected. . Order Date :- 8.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]