High Court · 2025

1. Ms. Sufia Saba, learned Advocate filed her power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 447 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 3(5), 115(2), 103 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.11.2024 against applicant and co-accused Sahdev and 3-4 unknown persons at 16:42 hours and according to the FIR on 11.11.2024 when cousin brother of the informant was coming from his tractor then on the way his dispute arose with the applicant and other accused persons and thereafter however matter was reconciled but subsequently at 8:15 AM applicant along with co-accused Sahdev and his 3-4 unknown associates made assault upon him through kick, fist and wooden stick.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that incident has been witnessed by Rajbeer and Lalit, who were the by-passers. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when cousin brother of the informant was taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually he did not cause any injury to the deceased as alleged. He further submits, actually deceased was negligently and rashly driving the tractor due to which his tractor met with an accident and in the accident he sustained injuries and unfortunately he died.

7. He further submits, while deceased was driving the tractor negligently then on the way dispute of the applicant and Sahdev arose with him, therefore, after his death a false FIR has been lodged against applicant and co-accused Sahdev.

8. He further submits, however, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant and other co-accused persons beaten the deceased through kick, fist and wooden sticks and as per other witnesses applicant and other co-accused persons also made assault upon the deceased through bricks but post mortem report suggests that he sustained only three injuries including a abrasion and two abraded contusions and he died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. He further submits, post mortem report of the deceased also suggests that the ribs of the deceased were found fractured, therefore, post mortem report belies the case of the prosecution and suggests, deceased sustained injuries accidentally.

9. He further submits, incident of accident has been admitted by number of alleged eye witnesses including Prahlad Kumar and Sanjay. He further submits, even from the statements of eye witnesses it reflects, very casually they stated that applicant along with others made assault upon deceased.

10. He further submits, even from the entire material available on record it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the deceased, therefore, present case even does not travel beyond Section 105 B.N.S.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 03.12.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted firstly applicant along with others quarreled with the deceased while deceased was driving the tractor and after that he along with his other associates made assault upon him due to which he died.

13. They further submitted, the incident of accident was witnessed by number of eye witnesses and they categorically stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased through wooden stick and they also used bricks but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that even as per eye witnesses the tractor which was driven by the deceased met with accident and post mortem suggests that deceased did not sustain any lacerated wound and he sustained two abraded contusion and one abrasion and his ribs were also found fractured. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, as per allegation applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased through kick, fist, wooden sticks and bricks but considering the nature of allegation, post mortem report of the deceased and the fact that tractor driven by the deceased met with an accident, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually in the accident deceased sustained injuries and died, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, however, eye witnesses stated that applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased but they also did not dispute the fact that tractor of the deceased met with an accident.

17. Further, all the eye witnesses also stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased through wooden sticks and bricks but post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained two abraded contusions and one abrasion and however his ribs were also found fractured but considering all these facts too, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if the allegations are accepted then also it could not be reflected, applicant was having intention to cause death of the deceased cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, law is settled that bail should not be dismissed for punitive purpose and unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 03.12.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant - Jay Kumar 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 6.3.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Ms. Sufia Saba, learned Advocate filed her power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 447 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 3(5), 115(2), 103 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.11.2024 against applicant and co-accused Sahdev and 3-4 unknown persons at 16:42 hours and according to the FIR on 11.11.2024 when cousin brother of the informant was coming from his tractor then on the way his dispute arose with the applicant and other accused persons and thereafter however matter was reconciled but subsequently at 8:15 AM applicant along with co-accused Sahdev and his 3-4 unknown associates made assault upon him through kick, fist and wooden stick.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that incident has been witnessed by Rajbeer and Lalit, who were the by-passers. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when cousin brother of the informant was taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually he did not cause any injury to the deceased as alleged. He further submits, actually deceased was negligently and rashly driving the tractor due to which his tractor met with an accident and in the accident he sustained injuries and unfortunately he died.

7. He further submits, while deceased was driving the tractor negligently then on the way dispute of the applicant and Sahdev arose with him, therefore, after his death a false FIR has been lodged against applicant and co-accused Sahdev.

8. He further submits, however, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant and other co-accused persons beaten the deceased through kick, fist and wooden sticks and as per other witnesses applicant and other co-accused persons also made assault upon the deceased through bricks but post mortem report suggests that he sustained only three injuries including a abrasion and two abraded contusions and he died as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. He further submits, post mortem report of the deceased also suggests that the ribs of the deceased were found fractured, therefore, post mortem report belies the case of the prosecution and suggests, deceased sustained injuries accidentally.

9. He further submits, incident of accident has been admitted by number of alleged eye witnesses including Prahlad Kumar and Sanjay. He further submits, even from the statements of eye witnesses it reflects, very casually they stated that applicant along with others made assault upon deceased.

10. He further submits, even from the entire material available on record it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the deceased, therefore, present case even does not travel beyond Section 105 B.N.S.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 03.12.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted firstly applicant along with others quarreled with the deceased while deceased was driving the tractor and after that he along with his other associates made assault upon him due to which he died.

13. They further submitted, the incident of accident was witnessed by number of eye witnesses and they categorically stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased through wooden stick and they also used bricks but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that even as per eye witnesses the tractor which was driven by the deceased met with accident and post mortem suggests that deceased did not sustain any lacerated wound and he sustained two abraded contusion and one abrasion and his ribs were also found fractured. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, as per allegation applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased through kick, fist, wooden sticks and bricks but considering the nature of allegation, post mortem report of the deceased and the fact that tractor driven by the deceased met with an accident, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually in the accident deceased sustained injuries and died, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, however, eye witnesses stated that applicant along with others made assault upon the deceased but they also did not dispute the fact that tractor of the deceased met with an accident.

17. Further, all the eye witnesses also stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased through wooden sticks and bricks but post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained two abraded contusions and one abrasion and however his ribs were also found fractured but considering all these facts too, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if the allegations are accepted then also it could not be reflected, applicant was having intention to cause death of the deceased cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, law is settled that bail should not be dismissed for punitive purpose and unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 03.12.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant - Jay Kumar 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 6.3.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad