High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 03.11.2024 against applicant and three others and according to FIR, Smt. Nirmala @ Seema was having love affair with the husband of the informant due to which, her family members were having enmity with the husband of the informant and on 31.10.2024 when he was coming back home on the motorcycle of his nephew then on the way, family members of Smt. Nirmala @ Seema i.e. applicant and others intercepted him and made assault upon him through wooden stick and thereafter they crushed him through tractor. It is further mentioned in the FIR that this incident has been witnessed by witnesses Ram Khiladi and Charan Singh and they immediately informed the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident took place on 31.10.2024 at about 3:30 p.m. in the evening and immediately informant was informed by witnesses Ram Khiladi and Charan Singh but in spite of that she lodged the FIR on 03.11.2024 at about 18:08 hours i.e. after more than three days and this fact suggests that it is based on false and frivolous facts and subsequently a false story has been cooked up by the informant and she implicated the applicant in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that actually it is a case of accidental death and unfortunately on 31.10.2024 in the evening deceased met with an accident through tractor in which he sustained injures and died and this fact is evident from the inquest report, which has been annexed at page no. 26 of the paper book. He further submitted that till the inquest, there was no allegation that applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, this fact also suggests that FIR is based on false facts.

6. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Laxman, the nephew of the deceased and according to him, he was also along with the deceased on the motorcycle and applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased and thereafter crushed him through tractor but if he would have been along with the deceased then he must immediately informed the police and would have lodged the FIR against the applicant and inquest report of death of the deceased would not have been prepared as accidental death and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently after lodgement of the FIR, he developed the story and started making allegation that he was along with the deceased on the motorcycle and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such testimony. He further submitted that even his statement was recorded after 10 days.

7. He further submitted that during investigation, statement of Ram Khiladi was recorded and he reiterated the version of FIR but his statement was recorded after lodgment of the FIR, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement as his statement appears to be contrary with the inquest report, which was conducted on

31.10.2024 i.e. on the date of incident.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.12.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statement of Laxman and Ram Khiladi, applicant along with others firstly made assault upon the deceased and thereafter crushed him through tractor but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that their statements appear to be contrary with the inquest report and FIR of the present case was lodged after three days.

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

11. However, as per FIR, applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased through wooden sticks and thereafter they crushed him through tractor and similar allegation was also made by alleged eye-witness Laxman and Ram Khiladi but FIR was lodged after three days. Further, on the date of incident, inquest report was prepared and from its perusal, it appears, it was a case of accidental death and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that due to previous enmity subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant and implicated the applicant and others and thereafter other witnesses also started making allegation against the applicant, cannot be completely ruled out. Further, statement of witness Laxman was recorded after ten days and neither from the FIR nor from the statement of witness Ram Khiladi, it could reflect, he was along with the deceased on the motorcycle at the time of incident.

12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.12.2024.

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

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

15. Let the applicant- Sandeep 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 03.11.2024 against applicant and three others and according to FIR, Smt. Nirmala @ Seema was having love affair with the husband of the informant due to which, her family members were having enmity with the husband of the informant and on 31.10.2024 when he was coming back home on the motorcycle of his nephew then on the way, family members of Smt. Nirmala @ Seema i.e. applicant and others intercepted him and made assault upon him through wooden stick and thereafter they crushed him through tractor. It is further mentioned in the FIR that this incident has been witnessed by witnesses Ram Khiladi and Charan Singh and they immediately informed the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident took place on 31.10.2024 at about 3:30 p.m. in the evening and immediately informant was informed by witnesses Ram Khiladi and Charan Singh but in spite of that she lodged the FIR on 03.11.2024 at about 18:08 hours i.e. after more than three days and this fact suggests that it is based on false and frivolous facts and subsequently a false story has been cooked up by the informant and she implicated the applicant in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that actually it is a case of accidental death and unfortunately on 31.10.2024 in the evening deceased met with an accident through tractor in which he sustained injures and died and this fact is evident from the inquest report, which has been annexed at page no. 26 of the paper book. He further submitted that till the inquest, there was no allegation that applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, this fact also suggests that FIR is based on false facts.

6. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Laxman, the nephew of the deceased and according to him, he was also along with the deceased on the motorcycle and applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased and thereafter crushed him through tractor but if he would have been along with the deceased then he must immediately informed the police and would have lodged the FIR against the applicant and inquest report of death of the deceased would not have been prepared as accidental death and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently after lodgement of the FIR, he developed the story and started making allegation that he was along with the deceased on the motorcycle and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such testimony. He further submitted that even his statement was recorded after 10 days.

7. He further submitted that during investigation, statement of Ram Khiladi was recorded and he reiterated the version of FIR but his statement was recorded after lodgment of the FIR, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement as his statement appears to be contrary with the inquest report, which was conducted on

31.10.2024 i.e. on the date of incident.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.12.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statement of Laxman and Ram Khiladi, applicant along with others firstly made assault upon the deceased and thereafter crushed him through tractor but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that their statements appear to be contrary with the inquest report and FIR of the present case was lodged after three days.

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

11. However, as per FIR, applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased through wooden sticks and thereafter they crushed him through tractor and similar allegation was also made by alleged eye-witness Laxman and Ram Khiladi but FIR was lodged after three days. Further, on the date of incident, inquest report was prepared and from its perusal, it appears, it was a case of accidental death and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that due to previous enmity subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant and implicated the applicant and others and thereafter other witnesses also started making allegation against the applicant, cannot be completely ruled out. Further, statement of witness Laxman was recorded after ten days and neither from the FIR nor from the statement of witness Ram Khiladi, it could reflect, he was along with the deceased on the motorcycle at the time of incident.

12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.12.2024.

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

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

15. Let the applicant- Sandeep 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad