High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.10.2024 at about 14:42 hours against applicant and nine others and 2-3 unknown persons and according to FIR, on 08.10.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, when informant was standing on the road along with her son Jahes Nishad then due to enmity, co-accused Akhilesh Singh along with others including applicant made assault upon them. It is further mentioned in the FIR that they badly beaten her son through wooden stick and sharp edged weapon and due to assault made by them, he died at spot.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, informant claimed herself to be eye-witness and according to her, she was present at the spot along with deceased i.e. her son and in the incident, she also sustained some minor injuries but there is no medical report of the informant on record and this fact suggests that she was not the eye-witness and subsequently a false story has been cooked up by her due to previous enmity. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects that the enmity of the informant side was with co-accused Akhilesh Singh and it appears, only being collateral of Akhilesh Singh, applicant has also been roped in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that during investigation, involvement of co-accused Akhilesh Singh was found false and no charge sheet was filed against him and as co-accused Akhilseh Singh, who was having enmity with the informant side, has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation therefore, this fact suggests that allegation levelled against the applicant was also false.

6. He further submitted that however, on the protest petition filed by the informant a direction has been given for further investigation but till date, after further investigation no report has been submitted. He further submitted that even from the record, it reflects that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with more than ten persons and from the record, it could not be even reflected that what weapon was used by the applicant and others and all these facts clearly suggest that only being collateral of co- accused Akhilesh Singh, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of brutal murder and from perusal of the post- mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained as many as eight injuries.

10. Learned counsel for the informant further pointed out that actually it is a case of honour killing. He further submitted that son of the informant i.e. deceased performed marriage with the daughter of co-accused Surya Nath Yadav and only due to this reason, accused were highly inimical with the deceased and due to this reason, they committed his murder. But neither learned AGA nor learned counsel for the informant could dispute that this fact has not been disclosed by the informant either in the FIR or in her statement recorded during investigation and according to her, there was enmity of the deceased with co-accused Akhilesh Singh. They further could not dispute the fact that during investigation co- accused Akhilesh Singh was exonerated and no charge sheet was filed against him. However, they submitted that further investigation is still pending.

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

12. However, applicant was named in the FIR and from the FIR, it reflects that along with applicant as many as eight persons were also named and informant appears to be eye-witness and according to her, she also sustained some minor injuries in the incident but there is no medical report of the informant on record. Considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually informant is not an eye-witness and subsequently after the murder of her son, due to enmity, she lodged the FIR, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, from the FIR, it reflects that there was enmity between co-accused Akhilesh Singh and deceased and only due to this reason, he along with applicant and others accused persons committed his murder but during investigation, complicity of co- accused Akhilesh Singh was found false.

14. Further, only general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused including applicant and from the record, it also could not be reflected that what weapons were used by the applicant and other accused persons and no specific weapon has been assigned to any of them.

15. Further, however, from the record, it reflects that further investigation of the case is still pending and according to learned counsel for the informant, actually it is a case of honour killing as deceased performed marriage with the daughter of co-accused Surya Nath Yadav but it appears, it is not the case of informant, therefore, merely because further investigation is pending, bail application of the applicant cannot be withheld.

16. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant was having any direct motive to commit the alleged murder and considering the fact that he was collateral of co-accused Akhilesh Singh, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to his false implication also cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

18. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

10.10.2024.

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- Shomnath Yadav 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 :- 20.2.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.10.2024 at about 14:42 hours against applicant and nine others and 2-3 unknown persons and according to FIR, on 08.10.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, when informant was standing on the road along with her son Jahes Nishad then due to enmity, co-accused Akhilesh Singh along with others including applicant made assault upon them. It is further mentioned in the FIR that they badly beaten her son through wooden stick and sharp edged weapon and due to assault made by them, he died at spot.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, informant claimed herself to be eye-witness and according to her, she was present at the spot along with deceased i.e. her son and in the incident, she also sustained some minor injuries but there is no medical report of the informant on record and this fact suggests that she was not the eye-witness and subsequently a false story has been cooked up by her due to previous enmity. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects that the enmity of the informant side was with co-accused Akhilesh Singh and it appears, only being collateral of Akhilesh Singh, applicant has also been roped in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that during investigation, involvement of co-accused Akhilesh Singh was found false and no charge sheet was filed against him and as co-accused Akhilseh Singh, who was having enmity with the informant side, has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation therefore, this fact suggests that allegation levelled against the applicant was also false.

6. He further submitted that however, on the protest petition filed by the informant a direction has been given for further investigation but till date, after further investigation no report has been submitted. He further submitted that even from the record, it reflects that on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with more than ten persons and from the record, it could not be even reflected that what weapon was used by the applicant and others and all these facts clearly suggest that only being collateral of co- accused Akhilesh Singh, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of brutal murder and from perusal of the post- mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained as many as eight injuries.

10. Learned counsel for the informant further pointed out that actually it is a case of honour killing. He further submitted that son of the informant i.e. deceased performed marriage with the daughter of co-accused Surya Nath Yadav and only due to this reason, accused were highly inimical with the deceased and due to this reason, they committed his murder. But neither learned AGA nor learned counsel for the informant could dispute that this fact has not been disclosed by the informant either in the FIR or in her statement recorded during investigation and according to her, there was enmity of the deceased with co-accused Akhilesh Singh. They further could not dispute the fact that during investigation co- accused Akhilesh Singh was exonerated and no charge sheet was filed against him. However, they submitted that further investigation is still pending.

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

12. However, applicant was named in the FIR and from the FIR, it reflects that along with applicant as many as eight persons were also named and informant appears to be eye-witness and according to her, she also sustained some minor injuries in the incident but there is no medical report of the informant on record. Considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually informant is not an eye-witness and subsequently after the murder of her son, due to enmity, she lodged the FIR, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, from the FIR, it reflects that there was enmity between co-accused Akhilesh Singh and deceased and only due to this reason, he along with applicant and others accused persons committed his murder but during investigation, complicity of co- accused Akhilesh Singh was found false.

14. Further, only general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused including applicant and from the record, it also could not be reflected that what weapons were used by the applicant and other accused persons and no specific weapon has been assigned to any of them.

15. Further, however, from the record, it reflects that further investigation of the case is still pending and according to learned counsel for the informant, actually it is a case of honour killing as deceased performed marriage with the daughter of co-accused Surya Nath Yadav but it appears, it is not the case of informant, therefore, merely because further investigation is pending, bail application of the applicant cannot be withheld.

16. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant was having any direct motive to commit the alleged murder and considering the fact that he was collateral of co-accused Akhilesh Singh, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to his false implication also cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

18. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

10.10.2024.

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- Shomnath Yadav 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 :- 20.2.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad