High Court · 2025

1. Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned Advocate submits, he has filed his power on behalf of the informant yesterday in the registry of this Court and, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list, however, he further submits he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Rahul Mishra, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 352, 351 (2), 109, 103(1) and 324 (4) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.10.2024 at 8.10 A.M. in the morning against applicant and eight others and 5-6 unknown persons and according to FIR on 30.10.2024 at about 11.48 P.M. in the night applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the husband of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in the incident one Shahid and Harshit Kumar were also sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, admittedly informant of the case i.e. wife of the deceased was not eye witness of the alleged incident. He further submits as per the prosecution case in the incident Shahid and Harshit Kumar were also sustained injuries but there is no medical report of the Harshit, however he claimed himself to be eye witness.

6. He further submits, from the statement of the injured Shahid it reflects, he attributed only general role to all the accused who were more than 13 in numbers and not even any specific weapon has been assigned by him to them.

7. It is further submitted, however, when the statements of the Harshit and one another eye witness Mohd. Adnan were recorded then they specifically attributed roles and weapon to all the accused including applicant and according to him applicant and co-accused Vipin and Jonti caught hold the deceased and they also made assault upon him through kick and fist and they specifically stated that co-accused Bablu, Annu @ Anurag made assault upon the deceased through iron rod and co-accused Akku inflicted knife injuries to him.

8. He further submits, according to these two eye witnesses co- accused Akku also caused knife injury to the injured Shahid.

9. He further submits, these two witnesses did not assign any weapon to the applicant and these facts clearly suggest that only with intention to falsely implicate the applicant his name was disclosed in the FIR and by the eye witnesses in their statements.

10. He next submits even from the statements of the alleged eye witnesses Harshit Kumar and Mohd. Adnan, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any fatal injury to the deceased.

11. He further submits as along with the applicant as many as 13 persons have been made accused in the FIR of the present matter without any specific role, therefore, it appears to be a case of over implication.

12. He further submits applicant is a Lekhpal and there was absolutely no occasion for him to participate in the alleged crime. He further submits actually, deceased was doing the business of property dealing and deceased made undue pressure upon the applicant to do illegal act but when being public servant applicant did not accept their proposal then only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter.

13. He further submits, there is no motive for the applicant to participate in the alleged crime. However, there was reason of his false implication as he is Lekhpal of the area.

14. He further submitted that applicant is a public servant and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.11.2024.

15. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is specifically named in the FIR and however informant was not an eye witness but all the eye witnesses also disclosed his name along with other accused persons and therefore, it cannot be said that he is innocent.

16. They further submitted that from the statement of Mohd. Shahid it reflects he assigned only general role to all the accused but as he was badly injured therefore, his complete statement could not be recorded by the investigating officer but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that in the entire case diary there is no other statement of witness Shahid. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant further could not dispute the fact that the eye witnesses Harshit and Mohd. Adnan, have attributed role of catching hold to the applicant coupled with the fact that he also gave a blow to the deceased through kick and fist and role of causing injury through specific weapon has been assigned by these witnesses to other co-accused persons.

17. They further could not dispute the fact that as per these eye witnesses co-accused Akku inflicted knife injuries to the deceased as well as injury to Mohd. Shahid. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a public servant and he is the Lekhpal and he has been made accused in the present matter along with 13 others. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

19. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with eight others but it reflects informant of the case who was wife of the deceased was not an eye witness. Further, record suggest that incident has been witnessed by Mohd. Adnan, Harshit and Mohd. Shahid and from the statement of Mohd. Shahid, the injured witness it reflects, he did not attribute any specific role to any of the accused including applicant and only general role has been assigned by him to all the accused. However from the statements of the eye witnesses Harshit and Mohd. Adnan it reflects, they attributed specific weapon to the accused persons along with their specific role and as per them applicant was not having any weapon and he caught hold the deceased and thereafter he also gave blow to him through kick and fist and from their statements it reflects that role of causing injury by specific weapon has been assigned to other co-accused. After considering the statements of these witnesses the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication and applicant has been falsely been made accused cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, applicant is the Lekhpal of the area and argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that he was not having any motive to commit the murder of the deceased also cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

21. Further, considering the fact that informant side including deceased indulged in the business of property dealing, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as applicant being Lekhpal of the area refused to act on the tune of the deceased and others, therefore, he has been made accused in the present matter also cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, applicant is a public servant and he is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 01.11.2024.

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

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

25. Let the applicant- Sunil Rana 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 5.3.2025 Neeraj NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned Advocate submits, he has filed his power on behalf of the informant yesterday in the registry of this Court and, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list, however, he further submits he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Rahul Mishra, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.472 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 352, 351 (2), 109, 103(1) and 324 (4) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.10.2024 at 8.10 A.M. in the morning against applicant and eight others and 5-6 unknown persons and according to FIR on 30.10.2024 at about 11.48 P.M. in the night applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the husband of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in the incident one Shahid and Harshit Kumar were also sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, admittedly informant of the case i.e. wife of the deceased was not eye witness of the alleged incident. He further submits as per the prosecution case in the incident Shahid and Harshit Kumar were also sustained injuries but there is no medical report of the Harshit, however he claimed himself to be eye witness.

6. He further submits, from the statement of the injured Shahid it reflects, he attributed only general role to all the accused who were more than 13 in numbers and not even any specific weapon has been assigned by him to them.

7. It is further submitted, however, when the statements of the Harshit and one another eye witness Mohd. Adnan were recorded then they specifically attributed roles and weapon to all the accused including applicant and according to him applicant and co-accused Vipin and Jonti caught hold the deceased and they also made assault upon him through kick and fist and they specifically stated that co-accused Bablu, Annu @ Anurag made assault upon the deceased through iron rod and co-accused Akku inflicted knife injuries to him.

8. He further submits, according to these two eye witnesses co- accused Akku also caused knife injury to the injured Shahid.

9. He further submits, these two witnesses did not assign any weapon to the applicant and these facts clearly suggest that only with intention to falsely implicate the applicant his name was disclosed in the FIR and by the eye witnesses in their statements.

10. He next submits even from the statements of the alleged eye witnesses Harshit Kumar and Mohd. Adnan, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any fatal injury to the deceased.

11. He further submits as along with the applicant as many as 13 persons have been made accused in the FIR of the present matter without any specific role, therefore, it appears to be a case of over implication.

12. He further submits applicant is a Lekhpal and there was absolutely no occasion for him to participate in the alleged crime. He further submits actually, deceased was doing the business of property dealing and deceased made undue pressure upon the applicant to do illegal act but when being public servant applicant did not accept their proposal then only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter.

13. He further submits, there is no motive for the applicant to participate in the alleged crime. However, there was reason of his false implication as he is Lekhpal of the area.

14. He further submitted that applicant is a public servant and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.11.2024.

15. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is specifically named in the FIR and however informant was not an eye witness but all the eye witnesses also disclosed his name along with other accused persons and therefore, it cannot be said that he is innocent.

16. They further submitted that from the statement of Mohd. Shahid it reflects he assigned only general role to all the accused but as he was badly injured therefore, his complete statement could not be recorded by the investigating officer but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that in the entire case diary there is no other statement of witness Shahid. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant further could not dispute the fact that the eye witnesses Harshit and Mohd. Adnan, have attributed role of catching hold to the applicant coupled with the fact that he also gave a blow to the deceased through kick and fist and role of causing injury through specific weapon has been assigned by these witnesses to other co-accused persons.

17. They further could not dispute the fact that as per these eye witnesses co-accused Akku inflicted knife injuries to the deceased as well as injury to Mohd. Shahid. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a public servant and he is the Lekhpal and he has been made accused in the present matter along with 13 others. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

19. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with eight others but it reflects informant of the case who was wife of the deceased was not an eye witness. Further, record suggest that incident has been witnessed by Mohd. Adnan, Harshit and Mohd. Shahid and from the statement of Mohd. Shahid, the injured witness it reflects, he did not attribute any specific role to any of the accused including applicant and only general role has been assigned by him to all the accused. However from the statements of the eye witnesses Harshit and Mohd. Adnan it reflects, they attributed specific weapon to the accused persons along with their specific role and as per them applicant was not having any weapon and he caught hold the deceased and thereafter he also gave blow to him through kick and fist and from their statements it reflects that role of causing injury by specific weapon has been assigned to other co-accused. After considering the statements of these witnesses the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication and applicant has been falsely been made accused cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, applicant is the Lekhpal of the area and argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that he was not having any motive to commit the murder of the deceased also cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

21. Further, considering the fact that informant side including deceased indulged in the business of property dealing, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as applicant being Lekhpal of the area refused to act on the tune of the deceased and others, therefore, he has been made accused in the present matter also cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, applicant is a public servant and he is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 01.11.2024.

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

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

25. Let the applicant- Sunil Rana 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 5.3.2025 Neeraj NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad