High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25758 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 974 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukhtyar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishe Pandey,G.A.,Sushil Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.244 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 62(2)(Ka) BNS, Police Station Adampur, District Amroha during pendency of the trial.
Legal Reasoning
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.7.2024 against the applicants and seven others and according to the FIR, co-accused Dalchandra is the real brother of the husband of the informant and a dispute was pending between him and her husband and due to that dispute on 27.7.2024 at about 20.30 hours when informant and her husband were at home, he along with four others (non- applicants) made assault upon the informant and her husband. 4. It is further mentioned in the FIR, co-accused Dalchandra gave a blow on the head of the husband of informant through iron rod, co-accused Bhushanker made assault upon the informant through 'sabbal' and co-accused Jyoti and Aarti made assault through bricks and co-accused Shakuntala also made assault upon the informant through wooden sticks. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when Police arrived at spot then accused persons managed to escape from the spot and thereafter informant was taken to the Hospital and after that in front of her daughter applicants had taken her husband towards forest and after committing his murder hanged his dead body. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the prosecution the alleged incident occurred in two parts and allegations have been made against the applicants with regard to second part that they had taken the husband of the informant towards forest and after committing his murder hanged his dead body but entire allegations levelled against them are totally false. 6. He further submits that from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it appears that before her daughter, applicants had taken the deceased and it appears that she disclosed this fact on the basis of the information given by her daughter, namely Kajal but when the statement of Kajal was recorded during investigation, which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, then she did not state that applicants had taken the deceased rather she stated that her father, i.e., the deceased had gone along with one Rohan. 7. He further submits that surprisingly during investigation neither Rohan was made accused nor his statement was recorded and without interrogating him charge sheet has been filed in the present matter against the applicants too. 8. He further submits that except the version of the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation there is no evidence which can suggest that applicants had taken the deceased and as informant could not witness the applicants while they were allegedly taking the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that applicants were the persons who had taken the deceased. 9. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence against the applicants on record which can connect them with the instant matter. 10. He further submits that actually applicant no.1 is the son-in- law of co-accused Dalchandra while applicant no.2 is the son of his brother-in-law and due to this reason they have been roped in the present matter along with co-accused Dalchandra. 11. He further submits that applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 05.10.2024.
Legal Reasoning
12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which one person lost his life and his wife, i.e., informant sustained serious injuries but they could not dispute the fact that the role of causing injuries to the informant has not been attributed to the applicants and as per FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it appears that applicants had taken the deceased and after committing his murder hanged his body but they fairly conceded that informant of the case could not witness this fact and FIR was based on the information furnished by her daughter, namely, Kajal and witness Kajal did not state that applicants had taken the deceased. 13.They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are the close relatives of co-accused Dalchandra and informant side was having enmity with co-accused Dalchandra. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. It is a case in which informant sustained injuries and her husband lost his life but it appears, at the time of assault applicants were not present at spot. However, according to the prosecution, subsequently they took the deceased and committed his murder but it reflects, there is no evidence in this regard on record. Rather, record suggests that deceased had gone along with one Rohan and during investigation neither statement of Rohan was recorded nor he was made accused. 16. Further, record also suggests that applicants are close relatives of co-accused Dalchandra and it is admitted fact that co-accused Dalchandra was having enmity with the informant side and considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that only being close relatives of co- accused Dalchandra applicants have been made accused in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 17. Further, applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 05.10.2024. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are 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 applicants-Mukhtyar and Lokendra 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants. 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 :- 24.2.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad