Allahabad High Court

Heard Shri Aditya Prakash, Advocate along with Shri Anshul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 5.10.2023, the informant along with her father Bachhulal Rawat had gone to Lohanipur to attend the Tehravi of the mother-in-law of her sister Savita who is married to the accused Udayraj (applicant). There at 10.30 pm in the night, her brother-in-law (Jija) Udayraj along with his brothers Satish and Dinesh came drunk and started abusing her father and when protested, the said accused persons attacked with Gadasa on the neck and left hand of her father. The informant tried to stop them, but the applicant attacked with Gadasa on her head as well. Her father died on the spot. Her sister Savita also got injuries in the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased suffered two ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He submits that the complainant, who is the eye-witness, has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and she has been declared hostile. She has stated before the trial court that she had not gone at the place of occurrence. She has not read the FIR, rather she has only signed it. He submits that the complainant has also denied to given her 2 BAIL No. 8580 of 2024 statement under Section 161 CrPC. She has also denied that in the alleged incident, she has suffered any head injury. It is next submitted that apart from the complainant, there are no other eye-witnesses. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other material with the prosecution. There is no eye-witness account in this case. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 7.10.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that it is a heinous offence. In the charge-sheet, as many as 5 eye- witnesses have been mentioned, who in their statement under Section 161 CrPC has alleged the complicity of the applicant. To which, learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of the witnesses were present at the time of occurrence which is evident from their statement that they have arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident took place. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that a perusal of the report of the trial court, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have been given ample opportunity on various dates to appear and even warrants have been issued to them, but they are not appearing and thus, the trial is delayed due to their non-cooperation; out of 22 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only one witness has been examined before the trial court so far; the trial court is not likely to be concluded in the near future coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since

7.10.2023 as well as in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be 3 BAIL No. 8580 of 2024 a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Udayraj involved in Case Crime No. 525 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 324 IPC, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. September 17, 2025 Shravan (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

Heard Shri Aditya Prakash, Advocate along with Shri Anshul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 5.10.2023, the informant along with her father Bachhulal Rawat had gone to Lohanipur to attend the Tehravi of the mother-in-law of her sister Savita who is married to the accused Udayraj (applicant). There at 10.30 pm in the night, her brother-in-law (Jija) Udayraj along with his brothers Satish and Dinesh came drunk and started abusing her father and when protested, the said accused persons attacked with Gadasa on the neck and left hand of her father. The informant tried to stop them, but the applicant attacked with Gadasa on her head as well. Her father died on the spot. Her sister Savita also got injuries in the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased suffered two ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He submits that the complainant, who is the eye-witness, has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and she has been declared hostile. She has stated before the trial court that she had not gone at the place of occurrence. She has not read the FIR, rather she has only signed it. He submits that the complainant has also denied to given her 2 BAIL No. 8580 of 2024 statement under Section 161 CrPC. She has also denied that in the alleged incident, she has suffered any head injury. It is next submitted that apart from the complainant, there are no other eye-witnesses. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other material with the prosecution. There is no eye-witness account in this case. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 7.10.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that it is a heinous offence. In the charge-sheet, as many as 5 eye- witnesses have been mentioned, who in their statement under Section 161 CrPC has alleged the complicity of the applicant. To which, learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of the witnesses were present at the time of occurrence which is evident from their statement that they have arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident took place. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that a perusal of the report of the trial court, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have been given ample opportunity on various dates to appear and even warrants have been issued to them, but they are not appearing and thus, the trial is delayed due to their non-cooperation; out of 22 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only one witness has been examined before the trial court so far; the trial court is not likely to be concluded in the near future coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since

7.10.2023 as well as in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be 3 BAIL No. 8580 of 2024 a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Udayraj involved in Case Crime No. 525 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 324 IPC, Police Station- Maurawan, District- Unnao, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. September 17, 2025 Shravan (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)