High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37847 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8898 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiv Poojan Verma Alias Bade Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Today, power has been filed on behalf of the informant by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh and Sri Harsh Narayan Singh, learned Advocates, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh and Sri Harsh Narayan Singh, learned
Legal Reasoning
were eye witnesses, therefore, prima facie their testimony appears to be doubtful. He next submits that even from their statements it reflects that they were chance witnesses. It is further submitted, they stated that applicant caused injuries to the deceased through 'farsa' while in the FIR it is mentioned that he caused injuries to the deceased through axe and this fact also suggests that actually neither mother nor wife of the informant could see the real incident. 8. He further submits that except mother and wife of the informant, there is no other eye witness account. 9. It is next submitted that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out 'farsa' was recovered which was alleged to have been used in the present crime. 10. He further submits that applicant neither confessed his guilt nor on his pointing out any weapon was recovered and entire recovery is false and planted one. 11. He further submits that even from the recovery memo which has been annexed along with the instant bail application it reflects that no bloodstain was found on the alleged recovered 'farsa' and considering the fact that 'farsa' is a common tool and very often use in the village, merely on the basis of such recovery it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 12. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.10.2024. 13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are two eye witnesses and they categorically stated that applicant caused injuries to the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that both the alleged eye witnesses were close relatives of the informant and informant in the FIR categorically stated that the incident was witnessed by the sons of Juggilal and in the FIR he did not state that his mother and wife were the eye witnesses. 14. They further could not dispute the fact that during investigation the statements of sons of Juggilal were not recorded. 15. They further could not dispute the fact that even from the statements of both the eye witnesses it reflects that they were chance witnesses. 16. They further could not dispute the fact that on the alleged recovered 'farsa, alleged to have been recovered on the pointing out of applicant no blood stained marks were found. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 18. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects that informant of the case was not the eye witness and he named the applicant in the FIR on the basis of the information given by sons of Juggilal but surprisingly during investigation their statements could not be recorded. 19. Further, however, record suggests that during investigation informant recorded the statements of the mother and wife of the informant and they claimed themselves to be eye witnesses but considering the contents of the FIR, prima faice their statements appear to be doubtful especially considering the fact that they also appeared to be chance witnesses. Further, except the mother and wife of the informant, there is no other eye witness account. 20. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one 'farsa' was recovered, which alleged to have been used in the crime but admittedly on the alleged recovered 'farsa, no bloodstained mark was found and, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 21. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.10.2024. 22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 24. Let the applicant-Shiv Poojan Verma alias Bade 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 :- 18.3.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
counsels for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Kamasin, District Banda during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.10.2024 against the applicant and according to the FIR, on 27.10.2024 at about 9.00 PM in the night when father of the informant was going towards tube well of Dr. Brijesh Singh then on the way applicant made assault upon him through axe and the incident was witnessed by sons of one Juggilal and due to assault made by him father of the informant died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly informant of the case was not the eye witness of the incident and it appears that he nominated the applicant in the FIR on the basis of the information given by sons of Juggilal but surprisingly during investigation their statements could not be recorded by Investigating Officer and this fact clearly suggests that actually they did not witness the real incident. 6. He further submits that during investigation when Investigating Officer came to know that it appears to be a case of no evidence then after two days he introduced wife and mother of the informant as eye witnesses. 7. He further submits that however, both the above witnesses, i.e., mother and wife of the informant in their statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant caused injuries to the deceased but as in the FIR it has not been mentioned that they