High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Hemant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Sri Sikhar Awasthi, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and co- accused Yash and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 1.6.2024 at about 6 pm in the evening, applicant alongwith other accused persons made assault upon the cousin brother of the informant through wooden stick and iron rod and due to the assault made by them, he sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially, FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 144, 148 and 307 IPC but after the death of the injured, case was converted under section 302 IPC.

6. He further submitted that admittedly informant was not the eye witness of the incident but inspite of that he named the applicant in the FIR as accused and this fact clearly suggests that applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that during investigation, however, Investing Officer recorded the statement of one alleged eye witness Dharmendra and he in his statement, however, stated that six persons made assault upon the deceased but he did not disclose the name of any accused and his statement has been annexed at page-58 of the paper book.

8. He further submitted that there is no eye witness account, on the basis of which, it cannot be said that applicant involved in the commission of the present crime.

9. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution when the applicant and co-accused Yash were arrested then they confessed their guilt and on their pointing out, one wooden stick and butt of spade were recovered but from perusal of the recovery memo, which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects that the alleged recovery was made from the place which was accessible to all.

10. He further submitted that even in the absence of any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recovery, it cannot be said that applicant committed the alleged offence.

11. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Section 308 IPC and his criminal antecedent has been explained in the instant bail application.

12. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.6.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that actually apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but he disclosed the criminal history of only one case in the instant bail application but they fairly conceded, that the other case relates to offence under section 325 IPC.

14. They however could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

16. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects that informant of the case was not an eye witness.

17. Record further suggests that however, one Dharmendra alleged himself to be an eye witness of the incident but he did not disclose the name of any accused in his statement recorded during investigation.

18. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on the joint pointing out of applicant and co-accused Yash one wooden stick and butt of spade were recovered which have been used in the instant crime but from the recovery memo it reflects, the recovery was made from a place which was accessible to all.

19. Further, as except above recovery, there is no other corroborative evidence against the applicant, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of above recovery, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the alleged offence.

20. Further, however, it reflects, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases and he has explained the criminal history of only one case in the instant bail application but remaining case relates to minor offence.

21. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.6.2025 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

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-Hemant, 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 :- 19.3.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Hemant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Sri Sikhar Awasthi, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and co- accused Yash and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 1.6.2024 at about 6 pm in the evening, applicant alongwith other accused persons made assault upon the cousin brother of the informant through wooden stick and iron rod and due to the assault made by them, he sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially, FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 144, 148 and 307 IPC but after the death of the injured, case was converted under section 302 IPC.

6. He further submitted that admittedly informant was not the eye witness of the incident but inspite of that he named the applicant in the FIR as accused and this fact clearly suggests that applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submitted that during investigation, however, Investing Officer recorded the statement of one alleged eye witness Dharmendra and he in his statement, however, stated that six persons made assault upon the deceased but he did not disclose the name of any accused and his statement has been annexed at page-58 of the paper book.

8. He further submitted that there is no eye witness account, on the basis of which, it cannot be said that applicant involved in the commission of the present crime.

9. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution when the applicant and co-accused Yash were arrested then they confessed their guilt and on their pointing out, one wooden stick and butt of spade were recovered but from perusal of the recovery memo, which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects that the alleged recovery was made from the place which was accessible to all.

10. He further submitted that even in the absence of any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recovery, it cannot be said that applicant committed the alleged offence.

11. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Section 308 IPC and his criminal antecedent has been explained in the instant bail application.

12. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.6.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that actually apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but he disclosed the criminal history of only one case in the instant bail application but they fairly conceded, that the other case relates to offence under section 325 IPC.

14. They however could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

16. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects that informant of the case was not an eye witness.

17. Record further suggests that however, one Dharmendra alleged himself to be an eye witness of the incident but he did not disclose the name of any accused in his statement recorded during investigation.

18. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on the joint pointing out of applicant and co-accused Yash one wooden stick and butt of spade were recovered which have been used in the instant crime but from the recovery memo it reflects, the recovery was made from a place which was accessible to all.

19. Further, as except above recovery, there is no other corroborative evidence against the applicant, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of above recovery, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the alleged offence.

20. Further, however, it reflects, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases and he has explained the criminal history of only one case in the instant bail application but remaining case relates to minor offence.

21. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.6.2025 i.e. for last more than 8 months.

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-Hemant, 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 :- 19.3.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad