High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

4. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicant-Rohit, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.707 of 2024, u/s 103(1), 238, 309(6) and 317(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.8.2024 by Mohd. Suhail Ali against unknown person alleging therein that his father Shaukeen Ali was an advocate by profession. He went on his scooty on 11.8.2024 at about 6 p.m. stating that he would return back but he did not return till late night. He was searched a lot by the informant and his family members. His mobile was switched off. In the morning at about 7.30 a.m. his mobile was ringing but there was no answer. After about an hour, it was switched off. The location of the mobile was traced and then informant along with other persons went there and on the way called the police. At about 12.21 hours they reached the said location wherein under the tree of peepal, they found a dry well in which body of his father was found covered by leaf. He identified that of his father. The scooty, mobile, gold ring are not present near him. The FIR be thus lodged and action be taken.

6. The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.2024 in which the doctor found seven antemortem injuries and two postmortem injuries. Haematoma of the brain was present and the cause of death is coma due to ante-mortem head injury.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The investigation in the matter concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is argued that there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only. It is further argued that although the police has shown arrest of Prem Singh, Kailash and the present applicant on 16.8.2024 and from the possession of the applicant one ATM card, 2 keys, Rs.220/- cash were recovered and further from the place where the accused persons were apprehended, a motorcycle and scooty was also found but there is nothing on record to show that the said ATM was ever used and there was any transaction from it. While placing para 36 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that there is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, links in chain of the circumstances are missing. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. While placing para 40 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that the applicant is ITI student and working as lineman in Hydle department on contract basis. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 53 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 16.8.2024.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased has been murdered brutally which would appear from the postmortem report itself wherein ante-mortem and postmortem injuries were found on his person. The applicant and two other co- accused were arrested by the police on the information of the police informer and then there was recovery from their possession. So far as applicant is concerned, ATM was recovered which belongs to the deceased. Scooty was also recovered from the place where the applicant was apprehended which was of the deceased. The applicant is involved in the present case, as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. The applicant was arrested along with two other co-accused persons namely Prem Singh and Kailash on the information given by police informer and ATM of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the scooty was also found standing from where the said arrest was made. There is no public and independent witness of the said recovery. The matter is of circumstantial in nature. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The investigation in the matter has concluded. The applicant has no criminal history.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant-Rohit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant (s) will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant (s) will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant (s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant (s) will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant (s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023, may be issued and if applicant (s) fails/fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant (s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant (s) is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant (s).

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant (s) to prison.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

4. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S has been filed by the applicant-Rohit, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.707 of 2024, u/s 103(1), 238, 309(6) and 317(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 12.8.2024 by Mohd. Suhail Ali against unknown person alleging therein that his father Shaukeen Ali was an advocate by profession. He went on his scooty on 11.8.2024 at about 6 p.m. stating that he would return back but he did not return till late night. He was searched a lot by the informant and his family members. His mobile was switched off. In the morning at about 7.30 a.m. his mobile was ringing but there was no answer. After about an hour, it was switched off. The location of the mobile was traced and then informant along with other persons went there and on the way called the police. At about 12.21 hours they reached the said location wherein under the tree of peepal, they found a dry well in which body of his father was found covered by leaf. He identified that of his father. The scooty, mobile, gold ring are not present near him. The FIR be thus lodged and action be taken.

6. The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.2024 in which the doctor found seven antemortem injuries and two postmortem injuries. Haematoma of the brain was present and the cause of death is coma due to ante-mortem head injury.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The investigation in the matter concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is argued that there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only. It is further argued that although the police has shown arrest of Prem Singh, Kailash and the present applicant on 16.8.2024 and from the possession of the applicant one ATM card, 2 keys, Rs.220/- cash were recovered and further from the place where the accused persons were apprehended, a motorcycle and scooty was also found but there is nothing on record to show that the said ATM was ever used and there was any transaction from it. While placing para 36 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that there is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, links in chain of the circumstances are missing. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. While placing para 40 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that the applicant is ITI student and working as lineman in Hydle department on contract basis. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 53 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 16.8.2024.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased has been murdered brutally which would appear from the postmortem report itself wherein ante-mortem and postmortem injuries were found on his person. The applicant and two other co- accused were arrested by the police on the information of the police informer and then there was recovery from their possession. So far as applicant is concerned, ATM was recovered which belongs to the deceased. Scooty was also recovered from the place where the applicant was apprehended which was of the deceased. The applicant is involved in the present case, as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. The applicant was arrested along with two other co-accused persons namely Prem Singh and Kailash on the information given by police informer and ATM of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the scooty was also found standing from where the said arrest was made. There is no public and independent witness of the said recovery. The matter is of circumstantial in nature. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The investigation in the matter has concluded. The applicant has no criminal history.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant-Rohit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant (s) will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant (s) will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant (s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant (s) will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant (s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023, may be issued and if applicant (s) fails/fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant (s) shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant (s) is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant (s).

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant (s) to prison.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal, J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad