High Court

2. Heard Sri B.B. Upadhyay, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Suraj Alias Ritik, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 307 of 2024, under Section 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, registered at P.S. Ganjdunddwara, District Kasganj.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 19.10.2024 by Mukesh Kumar against the applicant, Pappu@Rajesh and Dinnu@Dinesh alleging therein that his father Rakesh Kumar had a dispute with his brother Pappu@Rajesh due to sale of land. His uncle Pappu, cousin brother Suraj son of Pappu@Rajesh and Dinnu@Dinesh on 17.10.2025 at about 04.00 a.m. came to the shop of Bhure and assaulted his father Rakesh Kumar with a knife and murdered him. The incident has been seen by Bhure and other persons. He has come for loding of First Information Report after last rites of his father.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first informant is not eye witness of the incident. It is submitted that as per the F.I.R. Bhure is the eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons and even from perusal of the same, it would transpire that Bhure is only eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that perusal of the statement of Bhure would go to show that the applicant and the co-accused Dinnu@Dinesh have been assigned the role of catching hold of Bhure and exhorting Pappu to assault which was being resisted by Bhure after which Pappu took out the knife from his pocket and assaulted Rakesh Kumar many times in his abdomen and head after which the accused persons went away. It is submitted that case of the applicant is thus distinguishable with that of co-accused Pappu@Rajesh who has been assigned the specific role of assault upon the deceased with knife. It is further submitted that during investigation recovery of a knife has been done on the pointing out of the co-accused Pappu@Rajesh. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant and the co-accused Dinnu@Dinesh have been assigned the role of catching hold of the eye witness to the incident. The first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. Co-accused Pappu@Rajesh has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased Rakesh Kumar with a knife. The post mortem examination report of the deceased shows that he has received 13 incised wounds which are the cause of death. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Pappu@Rajesh. Investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant- Suraj Alias Ritik, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

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

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Naresh

2. Heard Sri B.B. Upadhyay, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Suraj Alias Ritik, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 307 of 2024, under Section 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, registered at P.S. Ganjdunddwara, District Kasganj.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 19.10.2024 by Mukesh Kumar against the applicant, Pappu@Rajesh and Dinnu@Dinesh alleging therein that his father Rakesh Kumar had a dispute with his brother Pappu@Rajesh due to sale of land. His uncle Pappu, cousin brother Suraj son of Pappu@Rajesh and Dinnu@Dinesh on 17.10.2025 at about 04.00 a.m. came to the shop of Bhure and assaulted his father Rakesh Kumar with a knife and murdered him. The incident has been seen by Bhure and other persons. He has come for loding of First Information Report after last rites of his father.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first informant is not eye witness of the incident. It is submitted that as per the F.I.R. Bhure is the eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons and even from perusal of the same, it would transpire that Bhure is only eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that perusal of the statement of Bhure would go to show that the applicant and the co-accused Dinnu@Dinesh have been assigned the role of catching hold of Bhure and exhorting Pappu to assault which was being resisted by Bhure after which Pappu took out the knife from his pocket and assaulted Rakesh Kumar many times in his abdomen and head after which the accused persons went away. It is submitted that case of the applicant is thus distinguishable with that of co-accused Pappu@Rajesh who has been assigned the specific role of assault upon the deceased with knife. It is further submitted that during investigation recovery of a knife has been done on the pointing out of the co-accused Pappu@Rajesh. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.11.2024.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant and the co-accused Dinnu@Dinesh have been assigned the role of catching hold of the eye witness to the incident. The first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. Co-accused Pappu@Rajesh has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased Rakesh Kumar with a knife. The post mortem examination report of the deceased shows that he has received 13 incised wounds which are the cause of death. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Pappu@Rajesh. Investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant- Suraj Alias Ritik, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

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

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Naresh