High Court

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 713 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.08.2024 against applicant by his wife and according to the FIR on 23.08.2024 applicant committed the murder of his daughter and while he was making assault upon her, informant arrived at spot and witnessed the incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, totally on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, actually applicant being father sometime scolded his daughter i.e. deceased, therefore, after her death he has been made accused in the present matter by his wife. He further submits, except the wife of the applicant i.e. informant there is no eye witness account.

6. He further submits, during trial, informant of the case i.e. mother of the deceased (wife of applicant) has been declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution case before the trial court and her statement recorded by the trial court has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

7. He further submits, actually on the date of incident i.e. 23.08.2024 applicant was not present at his house and he had gone to registry office for execution of registry of a Will, in which he was one of the witness and this fact is evident from the Will dated 23.08.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and from page-59 of the paper-book, it reflects that in the Will applicant was one of the witness.

8. He further submits, applicant is 75 years old and infirm person and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that wife of the applicant was the witness of the incident and she herself lodged FIR against the applicant and during investigation she also support the prosecution case but it appears, during trial due to the applicant she did not depose against him but as from perusal of the statement of other witnesses i.e. family members of the applicant, who were present on the lower portion of the house, it reflects that applicant was present in his house and he was making assault upon his daughter, therefore, merely on the basis of testimony of the informant at this stage it cannot be said that applicant did not commit the murder of his daughter.

10. Learned AGA further submits, however, from Annexure-5, it appears, applicant was one of the witness in the Will but as incident occurred on 23.08.2024 after or around 4.00 PM, therefore, merely on the basis that he was one of the witness of the Will, it cannot be said that he was not present in his house at the time of incident. Learned AGA further pointed out that applicant is aged about 65 years and he is not 75 years old.

11. Learned AGA further submits, applicant is in jail only since 24.08.2024, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and other facts of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. Applicant is father of the deceased and as per allegation he committed the murder of his daughter and as per informant, who was his wife, she witnessed the incident and, however, it reflects, during trial she did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile but from the record, it also reflects, apart from the informant number of other family members including brothers and father of the applicant were also present at the lower portion of the house at the time of incident and they in their statements recorded during investigation stated that they heard the shriek of the deceased while applicant was making assault upon her and till date they could not be examined by the trial court, therefore, considering these facts, it cannot be said that after the statement of the informant before the trial court there is no evidence left against the applicant.

14. Further, however, applicant has taken a specific defence in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that on 23.08.2024 a Will was registered at the registry office and in that Will applicant was one of the witness and at the time of alleged incident he was not present at his house but alleged incident is said to have taken place on 23.08.2024 at about 4.00 PM and from perusal of the Will, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 of the affidavit, it reflects that it was registered at about 2.00 PM, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that after registration of the Will applicant might have returned to his house and thereafter he would commit the murder of his daughter, therefore, at this stage, merely on the basis of Will dated 23.08.2024, it cannot be said that applicant was not present at the spot.

15. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail only since 24.08.2024.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

19. It is open for the applicant to renew his prayer for bail after the statements of other witnesses recorded before the trial court. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 AK Pandey

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 713 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.08.2024 against applicant by his wife and according to the FIR on 23.08.2024 applicant committed the murder of his daughter and while he was making assault upon her, informant arrived at spot and witnessed the incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, totally on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, actually applicant being father sometime scolded his daughter i.e. deceased, therefore, after her death he has been made accused in the present matter by his wife. He further submits, except the wife of the applicant i.e. informant there is no eye witness account.

6. He further submits, during trial, informant of the case i.e. mother of the deceased (wife of applicant) has been declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution case before the trial court and her statement recorded by the trial court has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

7. He further submits, actually on the date of incident i.e. 23.08.2024 applicant was not present at his house and he had gone to registry office for execution of registry of a Will, in which he was one of the witness and this fact is evident from the Will dated 23.08.2024 which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and from page-59 of the paper-book, it reflects that in the Will applicant was one of the witness.

8. He further submits, applicant is 75 years old and infirm person and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.08.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that wife of the applicant was the witness of the incident and she herself lodged FIR against the applicant and during investigation she also support the prosecution case but it appears, during trial due to the applicant she did not depose against him but as from perusal of the statement of other witnesses i.e. family members of the applicant, who were present on the lower portion of the house, it reflects that applicant was present in his house and he was making assault upon his daughter, therefore, merely on the basis of testimony of the informant at this stage it cannot be said that applicant did not commit the murder of his daughter.

10. Learned AGA further submits, however, from Annexure-5, it appears, applicant was one of the witness in the Will but as incident occurred on 23.08.2024 after or around 4.00 PM, therefore, merely on the basis that he was one of the witness of the Will, it cannot be said that he was not present in his house at the time of incident. Learned AGA further pointed out that applicant is aged about 65 years and he is not 75 years old.

11. Learned AGA further submits, applicant is in jail only since 24.08.2024, therefore, considering the nature of allegation and other facts of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. Applicant is father of the deceased and as per allegation he committed the murder of his daughter and as per informant, who was his wife, she witnessed the incident and, however, it reflects, during trial she did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile but from the record, it also reflects, apart from the informant number of other family members including brothers and father of the applicant were also present at the lower portion of the house at the time of incident and they in their statements recorded during investigation stated that they heard the shriek of the deceased while applicant was making assault upon her and till date they could not be examined by the trial court, therefore, considering these facts, it cannot be said that after the statement of the informant before the trial court there is no evidence left against the applicant.

14. Further, however, applicant has taken a specific defence in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that on 23.08.2024 a Will was registered at the registry office and in that Will applicant was one of the witness and at the time of alleged incident he was not present at his house but alleged incident is said to have taken place on 23.08.2024 at about 4.00 PM and from perusal of the Will, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 of the affidavit, it reflects that it was registered at about 2.00 PM, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that after registration of the Will applicant might have returned to his house and thereafter he would commit the murder of his daughter, therefore, at this stage, merely on the basis of Will dated 23.08.2024, it cannot be said that applicant was not present at the spot.

15. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail only since 24.08.2024.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

19. It is open for the applicant to renew his prayer for bail after the statements of other witnesses recorded before the trial court. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 AK Pandey