High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Ramharsh Alias Ramharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. None appeared on behalf of informant even in revised call.

2. Heard Sri R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Ekauna, District- Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.09.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR, applicant and others were the collaterals of the informant and on 05.09.2024 when father of the informant went alone for grazing the cattle then applicant and others made assault upon him with intention to commit his murder and when after receiving information informant arrived at spot then his father informed him that applicant and others made assault upon him and when he was being taken to hospital then on the way he died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but admittedly, informant was not the eyewitness and it reflects, on the basis of information given by the deceased, he disclosed the name of the applicant and others in the FIR but it appears, only to strengthen the case, he disclosed this fact, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his version.

6. He further submitted that when during investigation, Investigating Officer came to know that there is no eye-witness account and story narrated by informant appears to be doubtful, then he procured two witnesses, namely Kamlesh and Shyambihari, who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses but their statements were recorded on 06.12.2024 and 10.12.2024 respectively i.e. after three months, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon these alleged eye-witnesses.

7. He further submitted that except above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

8. He further submitted that as applicant was collateral of the informant and enmity between both the sides is admitted, therefore, it appears, after recovery of dead body of the deceased informant implicated the applicant in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and from the FIR and statement of the informant, it reflects, when informant after receiving information arrived at spot then deceased, before his death, disclosed the name of applicant and others and there are also two eye-witnesses of the incident, namely Kamlesh and Shyambihari but could not dispute the fact that statement of these two alleged eye-witnesses were recorded after three months.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is collateral of the deceased and enmity between both the parties is admitted and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than six months.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and as per allegation, he committed the murder of father of the informant but admittedly, informant of the case was not the eye- witness and it reflects, according to him, when he arrived at the place of incident after receiving information, then his father i.e. deceased, who was alive at that time, informed him that applicant and others made assault upon him but story narrated by the informant in the FIR and in his statement does not appear to be convincing.

14. Further, however, apart from the above facts, as per prosecution, Kamlesh and Shyambihari were the eye-witnesses but from perusal of the record, it reflects, their statements were recorded after three months.

15. Further, except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

16. Further, applicant is the collateral of the informant and enmity between both the sides has been admitted by informant in the FIR itself, therefore, possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.09.2024.

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- Ramharsh Alias Ramharan 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 :- 22.4.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Ramharsh Alias Ramharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. None appeared on behalf of informant even in revised call.

2. Heard Sri R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Ekauna, District- Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.09.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR, applicant and others were the collaterals of the informant and on 05.09.2024 when father of the informant went alone for grazing the cattle then applicant and others made assault upon him with intention to commit his murder and when after receiving information informant arrived at spot then his father informed him that applicant and others made assault upon him and when he was being taken to hospital then on the way he died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but admittedly, informant was not the eyewitness and it reflects, on the basis of information given by the deceased, he disclosed the name of the applicant and others in the FIR but it appears, only to strengthen the case, he disclosed this fact, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his version.

6. He further submitted that when during investigation, Investigating Officer came to know that there is no eye-witness account and story narrated by informant appears to be doubtful, then he procured two witnesses, namely Kamlesh and Shyambihari, who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses but their statements were recorded on 06.12.2024 and 10.12.2024 respectively i.e. after three months, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon these alleged eye-witnesses.

7. He further submitted that except above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

8. He further submitted that as applicant was collateral of the informant and enmity between both the sides is admitted, therefore, it appears, after recovery of dead body of the deceased informant implicated the applicant in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and from the FIR and statement of the informant, it reflects, when informant after receiving information arrived at spot then deceased, before his death, disclosed the name of applicant and others and there are also two eye-witnesses of the incident, namely Kamlesh and Shyambihari but could not dispute the fact that statement of these two alleged eye-witnesses were recorded after three months.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is collateral of the deceased and enmity between both the parties is admitted and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than six months.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and as per allegation, he committed the murder of father of the informant but admittedly, informant of the case was not the eye- witness and it reflects, according to him, when he arrived at the place of incident after receiving information, then his father i.e. deceased, who was alive at that time, informed him that applicant and others made assault upon him but story narrated by the informant in the FIR and in his statement does not appear to be convincing.

14. Further, however, apart from the above facts, as per prosecution, Kamlesh and Shyambihari were the eye-witnesses but from perusal of the record, it reflects, their statements were recorded after three months.

15. Further, except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

16. Further, applicant is the collateral of the informant and enmity between both the sides has been admitted by informant in the FIR itself, therefore, possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.09.2024.

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- Ramharsh Alias Ramharan 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 :- 22.4.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad