High Court

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238(1), 61(2)a BNS, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.10.2024 against the applicant and four others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 13.10.2024 in the afternoon maternal uncle of the informant had gone alongwith the applicant and others and did not return and on 18.10.2024 a missing report in this regard was lodged and subsequently informant came to know that from the account of his maternal uncle Rs. Nine lacs have been withdrawn.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that bank manager informed the informant that cheque of Rs. Seven lacs signed by his maternal uncle was deposited by applicant in his account but as on 13.10.2024 bank manager was informed about missing of the maternal uncle of the informant, therefore, money was not transferred in the account of the applicant.

6. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant is having suspicion that applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of his maternal uncle.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant alongwith others had taken the deceased on 13.10.2024 and after that deceased did not return but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 26.10.2024 i.e. after more than 12 days.

9. He further submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 140 BNS but after recovery of the dead body of the maternal uncle of the informant, case was converted under section 103 BNS.

10. He further submitted that as per allegation from the account of deceased Rs. Nine lacs was also withdrawn but admittedly said money was not withdrawn by the applicant rather it was withdrawn by other co-accused.

11. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant on 17.10.2024 i.e. after the death of the deceased, tried to encash his cheque of Rs. Seven lacs by depositing him in his account but actually that cheque was given to him by co-accused Lokesh who was his cousin brother and this is the reason that on the same day i.e. on 17.10.2024, applicant presented another cheque of Rs. Five lacs in the account of his cousin i.e. co-accused Lokesh and this fact has been specifically mentioned in the instant bail application. He further submitted that even in the statement recorded during investigation bank manager also admitted this fact.

12. He further submitted except the evidence that applicant presented the cheque of deceased in his account there is no evidence against the applicant on record which can show that he committed the murder of deceased.

13. He further submitted that dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track and the dead body was in two pieces and considering the post mortem report, prima facie, it appears that accidentally due to the impact of the train, deceased died.

14. He further submitted that even inquest suggests that an information was given by Station Master that deceased died due to train accident. He further submitted that inquest report has been annexed at page 28 of the paper book.

15. He further submitted that except the bald and verbal allegations, there is no cogent evidence that the deceased was actually murdered, rather there is cogent evidence that he died due to train accident.

16. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024.

17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

19. However, as per allegation, applicant and others had taken the deceased and thereafter his dead body was found but considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after 13 days and statements of witnesses namely Deepak and Arun Kumar were recorded after more than three months, prima facie evidence of last seen appears to be doubtful.

20. Further, however, from the record, it reflects that there is evidence against the applicant that after the death of the deceased, he tried to encash Rs. Seven lacs after depositing his cheque in his account but admittedly, no money was transferred in the account of the applicant.

21. Further, record also suggests that on the same day, applicant also presented a cheque of Rs. Five lacs in favour of his cousin brother i.e. co-accused Lokesh and considering this fact, defence taken by the applicant with regard to presentation of cheque of deceased, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

22. Further, there is no cogent evidence on record which can suggest that actually deceased was murdered rather considering the inquest report of the deceased and his post mortem report, it reflects that he died due to the train accident.

23. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024.

24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

26. Let the applicant-Ravindra Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

27. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

28. 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. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Ankita

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238(1), 61(2)a BNS, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.10.2024 against the applicant and four others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 13.10.2024 in the afternoon maternal uncle of the informant had gone alongwith the applicant and others and did not return and on 18.10.2024 a missing report in this regard was lodged and subsequently informant came to know that from the account of his maternal uncle Rs. Nine lacs have been withdrawn.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that bank manager informed the informant that cheque of Rs. Seven lacs signed by his maternal uncle was deposited by applicant in his account but as on 13.10.2024 bank manager was informed about missing of the maternal uncle of the informant, therefore, money was not transferred in the account of the applicant.

6. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant is having suspicion that applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of his maternal uncle.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant alongwith others had taken the deceased on 13.10.2024 and after that deceased did not return but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 26.10.2024 i.e. after more than 12 days.

9. He further submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 140 BNS but after recovery of the dead body of the maternal uncle of the informant, case was converted under section 103 BNS.

10. He further submitted that as per allegation from the account of deceased Rs. Nine lacs was also withdrawn but admittedly said money was not withdrawn by the applicant rather it was withdrawn by other co-accused.

11. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant on 17.10.2024 i.e. after the death of the deceased, tried to encash his cheque of Rs. Seven lacs by depositing him in his account but actually that cheque was given to him by co-accused Lokesh who was his cousin brother and this is the reason that on the same day i.e. on 17.10.2024, applicant presented another cheque of Rs. Five lacs in the account of his cousin i.e. co-accused Lokesh and this fact has been specifically mentioned in the instant bail application. He further submitted that even in the statement recorded during investigation bank manager also admitted this fact.

12. He further submitted except the evidence that applicant presented the cheque of deceased in his account there is no evidence against the applicant on record which can show that he committed the murder of deceased.

13. He further submitted that dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track and the dead body was in two pieces and considering the post mortem report, prima facie, it appears that accidentally due to the impact of the train, deceased died.

14. He further submitted that even inquest suggests that an information was given by Station Master that deceased died due to train accident. He further submitted that inquest report has been annexed at page 28 of the paper book.

15. He further submitted that except the bald and verbal allegations, there is no cogent evidence that the deceased was actually murdered, rather there is cogent evidence that he died due to train accident.

16. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024.

17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

19. However, as per allegation, applicant and others had taken the deceased and thereafter his dead body was found but considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after 13 days and statements of witnesses namely Deepak and Arun Kumar were recorded after more than three months, prima facie evidence of last seen appears to be doubtful.

20. Further, however, from the record, it reflects that there is evidence against the applicant that after the death of the deceased, he tried to encash Rs. Seven lacs after depositing his cheque in his account but admittedly, no money was transferred in the account of the applicant.

21. Further, record also suggests that on the same day, applicant also presented a cheque of Rs. Five lacs in favour of his cousin brother i.e. co-accused Lokesh and considering this fact, defence taken by the applicant with regard to presentation of cheque of deceased, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

22. Further, there is no cogent evidence on record which can suggest that actually deceased was murdered rather considering the inquest report of the deceased and his post mortem report, it reflects that he died due to the train accident.

23. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.10.2024.

24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

26. Let the applicant-Ravindra Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

27. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

28. 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. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Ankita