High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18444 Court No. - 66
Legal Reasoning
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 592 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Pandey,Sameer Srivastava,Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Ramashankar Misra, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the son of deceased and the same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sameer Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramashankar Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of son of the deceased and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2024, under Section 302, 182, 195, 211 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.05.2024 against 14 named accused (none applicant) and 4-5 unknown persons by Mithlesh Kumar Shukla and according to the FIR nominated accused persons along with their unknown associates made assault through their respective weapons and due to the assault made by them Sheshdhar, Rakesh Shukla and Manish sustained injuries and subsequently when Sheshdhar was taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case in which after 18 days on the basis of statements of two chance witnesses informant and injured of the case along with the applicant the and others have been made accused in the present matter after exonerating the named accused in the FIR. 6. He further submits from the record it reflects that in the incident one person died and one injured sustained fire-arm injury namely, Rakesh Kumar and he also did not disclose the name of applicant and he also reiterated the version of the FIR in this statement recorded during investigation. 7. He further submits that after 18 days investigating officer recorded the statements of Vishal Shukla and Vijay Shukla and from their statements it reflects that they were chance witness and they stated that applicant along with informant and injured of the case committed the murder of the deceased but their statements cannot prevail over the statement of injured. 8. He further submits even for the same incident there are two contrary version and which one is correct can only be ascertained by the trial court during trial. 9. He further submits as applicant side was having enmity with the family of the deceased and unfortunately informant and injured Rakesh were not having any relationship with the deceased therefore during investigation after exonerating named accused persons applicant has also been made accused in the present matter along with informant and injured of the case. 10. He further submits applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 19.06.2024 i.e. for last more than eight months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted it is case in which informant and injured of the case after committing the murder of the deceased lodged FIR against those persons who were innocent even without informing the family members of the deceased and when during investigation investigating officer found that the presence of the named accused persons were not at spot then he exonerated them and during investigation he recorded the statement of Brijesh Shukla and Vishal Shukla who disclosed the real fact and stated that applicant along with informant and injured of the case and others committed the murder of the deceased but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that the injured of the case Rakesh Shukla sustained fire-arm injury in the incident and he did not disclose the name of the applicant rather he reiterated the version of the FIR. 12. They further could not dispute the fact that entire prosecution case is based on the statements of Brijesh Shukla and Vishal Shukla and they were chance witnesses and their statements were recorded after 18 days. 13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.06.2024 i.e. for last more than eight months. . 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. It is a case in which with regard to the same incident there are two contrary version on record. First version is the version of the FIR in which informant did not even named the applicant and he disclosed the name of as many as 14 other accused. Second version came after 18 days when investigating officer recorded the statements of two witnesses Vishal Shukla and Brijesh Shukla and according to them actually informant and the injured of the case namely Rakesh along with applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as there are two contrary version of the same incident therefore, at this stage the story narrated by the witnesses Vishal Shukla and Brijesh Shukla cannot be accepted as gospel truth, cannot be brushed aside. Further both the alleged witnesses Vishal Shukla and Brijesh Shukla appears to be chance witnesses. 16. Further, in the incident Rakesh Shukla sustained fire-arm injury and therefore, he is the injured of the case and he in his statement recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR and he in his statement did not even disclose the name of the applicant. 17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.06.2024 i.e. for last more than eight months. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant -Vishal Pandey 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 7.2.2025 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad