High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65675 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1504 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajaram Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Upadhyay,Subhash Chand Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shikha Saxena Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Wasim, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Ms. Shikha Saxena, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 149, 452, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mirzamurad, District Commissionerate Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
Legal Reasoning
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.06.2024 at 22:26 hrs. against applicant and three others and 10-12 unknown persons and according to the FIR, on 12.06.2024 at 10:15 a.m. in the morning applicant and co-accused Govind Dubey threatened the informant and when informant gave information to police and police arrived at spot then they went away but after departure of the police, on the exhortation of Asha Dubey and Radha Dubey, they alongwith 10-12 unknown persons made assault upon informant side and due to the assault made by them four persons sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 307 I.P.C. and other sections but after the death of the uncle of the informant case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. He further submits that actually informant side was the real aggressor and due to the assault made by the informant side, from the side of applicant also three persons sustained injuries and their injury reports have been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit dated 15.04.2025. 6. He further submits that from the side of the applicant also an FIR was lodged against informant side on 12.06.2024 at 18:31 hrs. and when informant came to about this fact then he lodged the FIR of the present case against the applicant and others on 12.06.2024 at 22:26 hrs. i.e. after about four hours from the time of lodgement of the FIR of the applicant side and this fact clearly suggests that only to save his skin informant side lodged the FIR of the present case. He furthers submits, even only general allegation has been made against all the accused and however, from the post-mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained seven injuries but he died due to the comma as a result of head injury and therefore, it reflects, he died due to injury no.1 and there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant is the author of this injury. 7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of four other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and all the four cases were also lodged by the informant side. 8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.06.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.
Legal Reasoning
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation that he alongwith others made assault due to which three persons sustained injuries and one person died and post-mortem report also suggests, deceased sustained as many as seven injuries but they could not dispute the fact that from the side of the applicant also three persons sustained injuries and from his side also an FIR was lodged and FIR lodged by the applicant side was lodged earlier than the FIR of the present case. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is named in the FIR and as per allegation, applicant and others made assault due to which one person died and three persons sustained injuries but record also suggests that from the side of the applicant also three persons sustained injuries and from his side also an FIR was lodged. 12. Record further suggests that after four hours from the time of the lodgement of the FIR of the applicant side, FIR of the present case was lodged by the informant side. 13. Further, however, from perusal of the post-mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained seven injuries but he died due to the comma as a result of head injury, therefore, it reflects, he died due to injury no.1 and there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant is the author of this injury. 14. Further, it appears, apart from the present case, applicant is having previous criminal history of four other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it appears, all the four cases were also lodged by the informant side. 15. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.06.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months. 16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his/her bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 17. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Rajaram Dubey, 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 28.4.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad