High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2023, under Sections 302, 324 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kyoladiya, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Omkar made assault upon the husband of the informant through iron rod and sharp edged weapon due to which, he sustained injuries and died.

4. He further submitted that from the record, it reflects that informant of the case i.e. wife of the deceased was not only the eye-witness of incident but she was also the injured witness but during trial, when her statement was recorded then she has been declared hostile.

5. He further submitted that apart from the informant, as per prosecution, three others were also eye-witnesses of the incident but all the three also turned hostile during trial and statements of informant and other witnesses recorded by the trial court have been annexed along with the instant bail application.

6. He further submitted that no eye-witness is left to examine, therefore, chances of conviction of the applicant in the present matter is quite remote.

7. He further submitted that however, bail application of co- accused Omkar has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34828 of 2023 but till that date, other two eye- witnesses were not examined by the trial court and as now all the four eye-witnesses have been examined and they have been declared hostile, therefore, applicant should be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that even law is settled, there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 2305.2023 i.e. for last almost two years.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to offence under Section 354 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act but could not dispute other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the informant also conceded that during trial all the four alleged eye-witnesses including informant, who was even injured of the case, have been declared hostile. He further submitted that informant is having no objection, if applicant be enlarged on bail.

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

12. However, from the record, it reflects that as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Omkar made assault upon the husband of the informant, due to which, he sustained injuries and died and in the incident, informant also sustained injuries and record also suggests that apart from the informant, there were also three eye-witnesses but during trial all the four eye-witnesses including informant, who was injured too, did not support the prosecution case and all have been declared hostile.

13. Further, record also suggests that except the above noted eye- witnesses, there is no other evidence against the applicant and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as all the alleged eye-witnesses have already been declared hostile, therefore, there is no chance of conviction of applicant in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, however, record suggests that bail application of co- accused Omkar has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but it reflects, after his bail rejection, two other eye- witnesses have been examined and they have also been declared hostile. Further, even there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

15. Further, informant of the case, who was also injured of the case and was wife of the deceased, is also having no objection, if applicant be enlarged on bail.

16. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to offence under Section 354 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act but considering the fact that no evidence is left against the applicant after the statements of alleged eye-witnesses recorded by the trial court and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application of the applicant merely on the basis of his above criminal history.

17. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed.

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- Guddu Alias Tejram 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 :- 11.3.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2023, under Sections 302, 324 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kyoladiya, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Omkar made assault upon the husband of the informant through iron rod and sharp edged weapon due to which, he sustained injuries and died.

4. He further submitted that from the record, it reflects that informant of the case i.e. wife of the deceased was not only the eye-witness of incident but she was also the injured witness but during trial, when her statement was recorded then she has been declared hostile.

5. He further submitted that apart from the informant, as per prosecution, three others were also eye-witnesses of the incident but all the three also turned hostile during trial and statements of informant and other witnesses recorded by the trial court have been annexed along with the instant bail application.

6. He further submitted that no eye-witness is left to examine, therefore, chances of conviction of the applicant in the present matter is quite remote.

7. He further submitted that however, bail application of co- accused Omkar has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34828 of 2023 but till that date, other two eye- witnesses were not examined by the trial court and as now all the four eye-witnesses have been examined and they have been declared hostile, therefore, applicant should be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that even law is settled, there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 2305.2023 i.e. for last almost two years.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to offence under Section 354 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act but could not dispute other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the informant also conceded that during trial all the four alleged eye-witnesses including informant, who was even injured of the case, have been declared hostile. He further submitted that informant is having no objection, if applicant be enlarged on bail.

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

12. However, from the record, it reflects that as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Omkar made assault upon the husband of the informant, due to which, he sustained injuries and died and in the incident, informant also sustained injuries and record also suggests that apart from the informant, there were also three eye-witnesses but during trial all the four eye-witnesses including informant, who was injured too, did not support the prosecution case and all have been declared hostile.

13. Further, record also suggests that except the above noted eye- witnesses, there is no other evidence against the applicant and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as all the alleged eye-witnesses have already been declared hostile, therefore, there is no chance of conviction of applicant in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, however, record suggests that bail application of co- accused Omkar has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but it reflects, after his bail rejection, two other eye- witnesses have been examined and they have also been declared hostile. Further, even there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

15. Further, informant of the case, who was also injured of the case and was wife of the deceased, is also having no objection, if applicant be enlarged on bail.

16. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to offence under Section 354 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act but considering the fact that no evidence is left against the applicant after the statements of alleged eye-witnesses recorded by the trial court and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application of the applicant merely on the basis of his above criminal history.

17. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed.

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- Guddu Alias Tejram 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 :- 11.3.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad