High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Afzal Hasan, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No.389 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(V) of B.N.S. & 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nanpara, District- Bahraich.

3. As per the first information report, the first information is given by the Pradhan of the village on 23.07.2024 while stating that a dead body is lying near the canal and adjacent to the forest and thereafter the same could be identified on 29.07.2024 and subsequently, the first information report was also lodged and no-one is named.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and the present case is of circumstantial evidence, though the prosecution has, prima facie, failed to channelize the story and there seems to be material doubt thereof. Further submission is that the evidence against the present applicant is only to the effect that his location was found nearby one and a half kilometers from the place of occurrence and further he had a talk with one of the accused- Kuldeep Vishwakarma 2-3 times in the day hours on the date of occurrence. He also added that motive is not proved and only on the basis of suspicion and his presence in the nearby area where he conducts his business, the police has connected him in the present matter. He also submits that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no substantial evidence against the applicant that he was involved in committing the offence. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024. He next submits that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibilitythat he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Concluding his arguments he submits that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the applicant including one of the co-accused Kuldeep Vishwakarma were found in the nearby area and after some point of time they were also seen in the village Gangapur. He further submitted that there was a talk with Kuldeep Vishwakarma in a day hours, which was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that there is substantial evidence against the applicant, as such he is not entitled for bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the complainant and submitted that applicant is not entitled for any relief.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the first information report; there is material doubt in the prosecution story and the chain of the prosecution story is not complete; the evidences which are collected by the Investigating Officer with respect to his presence in nearby areas and his talk with one of co-accused are of weak kind of evidence; the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024 and he has undertaken that he would not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

9. Let the applicant- Arun Saini, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (ii) 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. He 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 under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS); (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and (iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS).

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Anurag

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Afzal Hasan, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No.389 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(V) of B.N.S. & 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nanpara, District- Bahraich.

3. As per the first information report, the first information is given by the Pradhan of the village on 23.07.2024 while stating that a dead body is lying near the canal and adjacent to the forest and thereafter the same could be identified on 29.07.2024 and subsequently, the first information report was also lodged and no-one is named.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and the present case is of circumstantial evidence, though the prosecution has, prima facie, failed to channelize the story and there seems to be material doubt thereof. Further submission is that the evidence against the present applicant is only to the effect that his location was found nearby one and a half kilometers from the place of occurrence and further he had a talk with one of the accused- Kuldeep Vishwakarma 2-3 times in the day hours on the date of occurrence. He also added that motive is not proved and only on the basis of suspicion and his presence in the nearby area where he conducts his business, the police has connected him in the present matter. He also submits that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no substantial evidence against the applicant that he was involved in committing the offence. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024. He next submits that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibilitythat he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Concluding his arguments he submits that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the applicant including one of the co-accused Kuldeep Vishwakarma were found in the nearby area and after some point of time they were also seen in the village Gangapur. He further submitted that there was a talk with Kuldeep Vishwakarma in a day hours, which was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that there is substantial evidence against the applicant, as such he is not entitled for bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the complainant and submitted that applicant is not entitled for any relief.

7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the first information report; there is material doubt in the prosecution story and the chain of the prosecution story is not complete; the evidences which are collected by the Investigating Officer with respect to his presence in nearby areas and his talk with one of co-accused are of weak kind of evidence; the applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024 and he has undertaken that he would not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

9. Let the applicant- Arun Saini, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (ii) 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. He 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 under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS); (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and (iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS).

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Anurag