✦ High Court of India · 27 May 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 27 May 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
27 May 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,888 words

2. A short-counter affidavit by learned counsel for the first informant dated 18.05.2025 to which a short-rejoinder affidavit dated 22.05.2025 on behalf of the applicant have been filed which are on record.

3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Harendrapal @ Gandhi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2024, under Sections 309(6), 103(1) and 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Mahawan, District Mathura.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 02.09.2024 by Balveer Singh against unknown person alleging therein that he is a resident of Rajasthan. His younger brother Jitendra Singh is a resident of Dwarka Dham, Police Station Highway and is running a shop in the name of Krishna Building Material from which he sells & purchases cement and there is business going on in which money is transacted. On 01.09.2024 his brother on his car UP85BV8184 taking Rs. 10,000/- went at about 12 pm to Guddi Building Material, Mahawan for taking his balance amount. He used a One Plus mobile phone having two sims the number of which is given there. The police found the vehicle of his brother in which he was lying dead. When the informant reached the mortuary he saw injury on the neck of his brother and his gold ring and 1/2 gold chain were missing. His mobile and money which he was carrying was also not found. Someone has looted his brother and murdered him. A report be lodged and action be taken.

6. The postmortem examination of the deceased Jitendra Fojdar was conducted on 02.09.2024 and the doctor found the following antemortem injuries:- "1. A black colored ligature mark of size 11x01 cm, horizontal shape situated 10 cms below Rt ear pinna, touching the midline of neck is present. In trachea Petechial Hemorrhages is present. Hyoid bone is intact." The cause of death was opined as asphyxia caused by strangulation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is submitted that after lodging of the first information report the statement of the first informant was recorded on 02.09.2024 in which for the first time he discloses the name of the applicant and Geetam Singh the cousin brother of the applicant and has cast suspicion on them to be involved in the present matter since there was money due on the applicant and the deceased had asked for returning it. It is submitted that subsequently the applicant was arrested on 04.09.2024 in which it is alleged that there was fire from the side of the accused on the police officers and in rebuttal by the police in which he received injury wherein the applicant was arrested driving a motorcycle and Geetam Singh was sitting on it. On search from the left pocket of the pant of the applicant 1/2 gold chain of yellow material, Rs. 4500/- was recovered whereas from the possession of Geetam Singh from the right pocket of the pant a gold ring of yellow material and Rs. 4000/- was recovered. It is submitted that charge-sheet dated 22.11.2024 in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and Geetam Singh. It is submitted that the alleged recovery is a planted recovery.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court Annexure-26 of the affidavit and has submitted that the applicant was detained at the police station from 01.09.2024 and Mahipal Singh the father of the applicant had sent an application through e-mail regarding it to the S.S.P., Mathura on 03.09.2024. It is submitted that there is a CCTV footage also recovered, a perusal of which would go to show that the deceased was seen going with his car towards Guddi Material shop and then returning back from there at about 11:59 pm and thus the fact that till that time the deceased was alive is not in dispute. It is submitted that there is no further recovery of any CCTV footage with regard to the movement or the alleged incident collected by the police. It is submitted that links in the chain of circumstances are missing. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 68 of the affidavit and is in jail since 04.09.2024.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the links in the chain of circumstances are complete leading on only conclusion that the applicant is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the same are that the applicant had a motive to commit the aforesaid offence since money was due on him, there is a call record at about 12 pm from the accused to the deceased from which the location of the deceased was enquired into and the applicant went and committed the offence, the location of the mobile phones of the deceased and the applicant were near the same place, the recovery of 1/2 gold chain from the possession of the applicant, an angocha on the pointing out of the applicant which is alleged to be the article by which the deceased was strangulated, the recovery of a mobile phone on the pointing out of the applicant from the place of occurrence and further the fact that finger prints were traced by the forensic team from the vehicle of the deceased and samples of finger prints of the applicant and Geetam Singh were taken wherein the finger prints from the vehicle were numbered as 4008 to 4018 and the finger prints of the applicant and Geetam Singh were numbered as 4023 to 4042 in which the finger prints of the applicant were numbered as 4023 to 4032 and the finger prints of Geetam Singh were numbered as 4033 to 4042 out of which the Finger Print no. 4015 traced from the vehicle tallied with that of Finger Print no. 4027 being that of the applicant, the same have been placed before the Court by placing paragraph 3 and Annexure-S.C.A.-1 of the short-counter affidavit. It is submitted that the same would go to show that the applicant was also present at the time of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

10. Learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant and further submitted that after the present case, the applicant has been involved in two other cases. It is submitted that the first informant has cast suspicion upon the applicant and has given statement to the police on 02.09.2024 naming the applicant and Geetam Singh. It is submitted that the mobile phone of the applicant as per the CDR was also located near the phone of the deceased. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged against an unknown person. The implication of the applicant in the matter is initially on the basis of suspicion casted upon him and co-accused Geetam Singh by the first informant. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The version as per the first information report is that the first informant had gone to the shop of the applicant for taking his balance money. The recovery of 1/2 gold chain from the pocket of the applicant although is there but the fact that the same has been recovered after three days is not disputed. The CCTV footage collected is not incriminating in any manner. The investigation in the matter has completed and charge-sheet has been submitted.

12. 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.

13. Let the applicant- Harendrapal @ Gandhi, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The applicant 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 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

14. 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 to prison.

15. The bail application is allowed.

16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. A short-counter affidavit by learned counsel for the first informant dated 18.05.2025 to which a short-rejoinder affidavit dated 22.05.2025 on behalf of the applicant have been filed which are on record.

3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Harendrapal @ Gandhi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 201 of 2024, under Sections 309(6), 103(1) and 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Mahawan, District Mathura.

5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 02.09.2024 by Balveer Singh against unknown person alleging therein that he is a resident of Rajasthan. His younger brother Jitendra Singh is a resident of Dwarka Dham, Police Station Highway and is running a shop in the name of Krishna Building Material from which he sells & purchases cement and there is business going on in which money is transacted. On 01.09.2024 his brother on his car UP85BV8184 taking Rs. 10,000/- went at about 12 pm to Guddi Building Material, Mahawan for taking his balance amount. He used a One Plus mobile phone having two sims the number of which is given there. The police found the vehicle of his brother in which he was lying dead. When the informant reached the mortuary he saw injury on the neck of his brother and his gold ring and 1/2 gold chain were missing. His mobile and money which he was carrying was also not found. Someone has looted his brother and murdered him. A report be lodged and action be taken.

6. The postmortem examination of the deceased Jitendra Fojdar was conducted on 02.09.2024 and the doctor found the following antemortem injuries:- "1. A black colored ligature mark of size 11x01 cm, horizontal shape situated 10 cms below Rt ear pinna, touching the midline of neck is present. In trachea Petechial Hemorrhages is present. Hyoid bone is intact." The cause of death was opined as asphyxia caused by strangulation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is submitted that after lodging of the first information report the statement of the first informant was recorded on 02.09.2024 in which for the first time he discloses the name of the applicant and Geetam Singh the cousin brother of the applicant and has cast suspicion on them to be involved in the present matter since there was money due on the applicant and the deceased had asked for returning it. It is submitted that subsequently the applicant was arrested on 04.09.2024 in which it is alleged that there was fire from the side of the accused on the police officers and in rebuttal by the police in which he received injury wherein the applicant was arrested driving a motorcycle and Geetam Singh was sitting on it. On search from the left pocket of the pant of the applicant 1/2 gold chain of yellow material, Rs. 4500/- was recovered whereas from the possession of Geetam Singh from the right pocket of the pant a gold ring of yellow material and Rs. 4000/- was recovered. It is submitted that charge-sheet dated 22.11.2024 in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and Geetam Singh. It is submitted that the alleged recovery is a planted recovery.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court Annexure-26 of the affidavit and has submitted that the applicant was detained at the police station from 01.09.2024 and Mahipal Singh the father of the applicant had sent an application through e-mail regarding it to the S.S.P., Mathura on 03.09.2024. It is submitted that there is a CCTV footage also recovered, a perusal of which would go to show that the deceased was seen going with his car towards Guddi Material shop and then returning back from there at about 11:59 pm and thus the fact that till that time the deceased was alive is not in dispute. It is submitted that there is no further recovery of any CCTV footage with regard to the movement or the alleged incident collected by the police. It is submitted that links in the chain of circumstances are missing. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 68 of the affidavit and is in jail since 04.09.2024.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the links in the chain of circumstances are complete leading on only conclusion that the applicant is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the same are that the applicant had a motive to commit the aforesaid offence since money was due on him, there is a call record at about 12 pm from the accused to the deceased from which the location of the deceased was enquired into and the applicant went and committed the offence, the location of the mobile phones of the deceased and the applicant were near the same place, the recovery of 1/2 gold chain from the possession of the applicant, an angocha on the pointing out of the applicant which is alleged to be the article by which the deceased was strangulated, the recovery of a mobile phone on the pointing out of the applicant from the place of occurrence and further the fact that finger prints were traced by the forensic team from the vehicle of the deceased and samples of finger prints of the applicant and Geetam Singh were taken wherein the finger prints from the vehicle were numbered as 4008 to 4018 and the finger prints of the applicant and Geetam Singh were numbered as 4023 to 4042 in which the finger prints of the applicant were numbered as 4023 to 4032 and the finger prints of Geetam Singh were numbered as 4033 to 4042 out of which the Finger Print no. 4015 traced from the vehicle tallied with that of Finger Print no. 4027 being that of the applicant, the same have been placed before the Court by placing paragraph 3 and Annexure-S.C.A.-1 of the short-counter affidavit. It is submitted that the same would go to show that the applicant was also present at the time of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected.

10. Learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant and further submitted that after the present case, the applicant has been involved in two other cases. It is submitted that the first informant has cast suspicion upon the applicant and has given statement to the police on 02.09.2024 naming the applicant and Geetam Singh. It is submitted that the mobile phone of the applicant as per the CDR was also located near the phone of the deceased. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report has been lodged against an unknown person. The implication of the applicant in the matter is initially on the basis of suspicion casted upon him and co-accused Geetam Singh by the first informant. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The version as per the first information report is that the first informant had gone to the shop of the applicant for taking his balance money. The recovery of 1/2 gold chain from the pocket of the applicant although is there but the fact that the same has been recovered after three days is not disputed. The CCTV footage collected is not incriminating in any manner. The investigation in the matter has completed and charge-sheet has been submitted.

12. 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.

13. Let the applicant- Harendrapal @ Gandhi, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The applicant 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 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

14. 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 to prison.

15. The bail application is allowed.

16. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments