High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.10.2024 against applicant and according to the FIR on 10.10.2024 at about 9:00 hours applicant has taken the son of the informant along with one Sanib to the river and thereafter when he was trying to commit murder of his son by drowning then his friend Sanib informed him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 11.10.2024 at about 7.30 AM in the morning the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from the river.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, actually it is a case of accidental drowning and totally on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits, the inquest report of the deceased has been annexed at page-44 of the paper-book and from its perusal, it reflects that inquest was conducted on 11.10.2024 at about 10.20 hours and at the time of inquest even informant and his family members were present and they were also inquest witnesses but they at the time of inquest did not state that actually it is a case of forceful drowning and from the inquest it reflects, in the opinion of the inquest witnesses deceased died due to the accidental drowning but after one hour informant lodged FIR of the present case with the allegation that actually applicant committed the murder by drowning and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on false facts.

6. He further submits, however, entire prosecution case is based on the statement of Sanib, the friend of the deceased, who was also present along with deceased at the time of incident but as FIR of the present case had already lodged on 11.10.2024, therefore, when his statement was recorded then he also started making allegation against the applicant and reiterated the version of the FIR. He further submits, in the light of the inquest report his testimony is not reliable.

7. He further submits, even from the post mortem, it reflects, deceased did not sustain any external injury and he died due to drowning and there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant tried to sexually exploited the victim.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted deceased was about ten years old boy and his friend Sanib was eye witness and he categorically stated that applicant committed his murder by drowning but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after the inquest and in the inquest informant and his family members were inquest witnesses and at the time of inquest they stated that it is a case of accidental drowning and after one hour of the incident FIR was lodged.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem it could not be reflected that deceased sustained any ante mortem injury.

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

12. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the son of the informant aged about ten years by drowning and the incident has been witnessed by Sanib, the friend of the deceased, who was also aged about ten years but it reflects, till inquest report no such allegation was against the applicant and from the inquest it reflects, even as per informant, it was a case of accidental drowning but after one hour from the inquest he lodged the FIR of the present case with the allegation that applicant committed the murder of his son by drowning and thereafter statement of alleged witness Sanib was recorded. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant and as applicant had already been named in the FIR, therefore, friend of the deceased in his statement also started making allegation against the applicant, cannot be ruled out.

13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.10.2024.

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

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

16. Let the applicant - Salman 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.

17. 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.

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. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.10.2024 against applicant and according to the FIR on 10.10.2024 at about 9:00 hours applicant has taken the son of the informant along with one Sanib to the river and thereafter when he was trying to commit murder of his son by drowning then his friend Sanib informed him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 11.10.2024 at about 7.30 AM in the morning the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from the river.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, actually it is a case of accidental drowning and totally on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits, the inquest report of the deceased has been annexed at page-44 of the paper-book and from its perusal, it reflects that inquest was conducted on 11.10.2024 at about 10.20 hours and at the time of inquest even informant and his family members were present and they were also inquest witnesses but they at the time of inquest did not state that actually it is a case of forceful drowning and from the inquest it reflects, in the opinion of the inquest witnesses deceased died due to the accidental drowning but after one hour informant lodged FIR of the present case with the allegation that actually applicant committed the murder by drowning and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on false facts.

6. He further submits, however, entire prosecution case is based on the statement of Sanib, the friend of the deceased, who was also present along with deceased at the time of incident but as FIR of the present case had already lodged on 11.10.2024, therefore, when his statement was recorded then he also started making allegation against the applicant and reiterated the version of the FIR. He further submits, in the light of the inquest report his testimony is not reliable.

7. He further submits, even from the post mortem, it reflects, deceased did not sustain any external injury and he died due to drowning and there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant tried to sexually exploited the victim.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted deceased was about ten years old boy and his friend Sanib was eye witness and he categorically stated that applicant committed his murder by drowning but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after the inquest and in the inquest informant and his family members were inquest witnesses and at the time of inquest they stated that it is a case of accidental drowning and after one hour of the incident FIR was lodged.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem it could not be reflected that deceased sustained any ante mortem injury.

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

12. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the son of the informant aged about ten years by drowning and the incident has been witnessed by Sanib, the friend of the deceased, who was also aged about ten years but it reflects, till inquest report no such allegation was against the applicant and from the inquest it reflects, even as per informant, it was a case of accidental drowning but after one hour from the inquest he lodged the FIR of the present case with the allegation that applicant committed the murder of his son by drowning and thereafter statement of alleged witness Sanib was recorded. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant and as applicant had already been named in the FIR, therefore, friend of the deceased in his statement also started making allegation against the applicant, cannot be ruled out.

13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.10.2024.

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

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

16. Let the applicant - Salman 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.

17. 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.

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. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad