High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Aditya Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2024, under Sections 105, 352, 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.12.2024 against applicant and four others and according to FIR, on 13.12.2024 at about 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon when informant had gone to the clinic of doctor and her husband was alone in the house then applicant along with others after entering in her house started making assault upon her husband. It is further mentioned in the FIR that at about 4:00 p.m. when she arrived at her home then she witnessed this incident.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that co-accused Aman Verma intentionally caused injury upon the chest of her husband knowing the fact that pacemaker has been fitted to him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when husband of the informant has taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between father-in-law of the applicant and deceased and, therefore, only being son-in-law of brother of the deceased, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects that role of making assault upon the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Aman Verma.

8. He further submitted that post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he did not sustain any injury and his cause of death could not be ascertained and his parts of both the lungs and heart were preserved and till date, no report of lungs and heart has been received. It is next urged considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, he cannot be made responsible for the death of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that even present case does not travel beyond Section 105 part II BNS.

10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.12.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between deceased and his brother.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that as per prosecution, co-accused Aman Verma was the person, who made assault upon the chest of the deceased. They further could not dispute the fact that during post-mortem, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained.

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

14. However, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others deceased died but record also suggests that there is specific allegation against co-accused Aman Verma that he made assault upon the chest of the deceased knowing the fact that pacemaker has been fitted to him.

15. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects that cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and his parts of both the lungs and heart were preserved but till date there is no report of lungs and heart on record.

16. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against applicant and the fact that he is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between both deceased and his brother, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence that applicant caused death of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that present case does not travel beyond Section 105 part II BNS, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.12.2024.

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

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

21. Let the applicant- Sudhir Kumar Verma Alias Sudhir Verma 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 27.2.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Aditya Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2024, under Sections 105, 352, 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.12.2024 against applicant and four others and according to FIR, on 13.12.2024 at about 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon when informant had gone to the clinic of doctor and her husband was alone in the house then applicant along with others after entering in her house started making assault upon her husband. It is further mentioned in the FIR that at about 4:00 p.m. when she arrived at her home then she witnessed this incident.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that co-accused Aman Verma intentionally caused injury upon the chest of her husband knowing the fact that pacemaker has been fitted to him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when husband of the informant has taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between father-in-law of the applicant and deceased and, therefore, only being son-in-law of brother of the deceased, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects that role of making assault upon the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Aman Verma.

8. He further submitted that post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he did not sustain any injury and his cause of death could not be ascertained and his parts of both the lungs and heart were preserved and till date, no report of lungs and heart has been received. It is next urged considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, he cannot be made responsible for the death of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that even present case does not travel beyond Section 105 part II BNS.

10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.12.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between deceased and his brother.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that as per prosecution, co-accused Aman Verma was the person, who made assault upon the chest of the deceased. They further could not dispute the fact that during post-mortem, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained.

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

14. However, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others deceased died but record also suggests that there is specific allegation against co-accused Aman Verma that he made assault upon the chest of the deceased knowing the fact that pacemaker has been fitted to him.

15. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects that cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and his parts of both the lungs and heart were preserved but till date there is no report of lungs and heart on record.

16. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against applicant and the fact that he is son-in-law of the brother of the deceased and a dispute was pending between both deceased and his brother, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence that applicant caused death of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that present case does not travel beyond Section 105 part II BNS, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.12.2024.

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

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

21. Let the applicant- Sudhir Kumar Verma Alias Sudhir Verma 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 27.2.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad