High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Neeraj Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nayanshri T. Srivastava,Tanya Makker Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kameshwar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Ms. Tanya Makker, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 and 120B IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against five persons including applicant no. 1 and co-accused Arvind Pal and Ram Prakash Pal but during investigation through the statement of the injured applicant no. 2 has also been made accused in the present matter.

4. She further submitted that as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of all the accused including applicants is same and after considering entire facts in detail co-accused Arvind Pal was released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.8.2024 passed in 28913 of 2024 and after considering this fact co-accused Om Prakash Pal who was also named in the FIR has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.3.2025 passed in Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 9106 of 2025.

5. She further submitted that however, bail application of co- accused Ram Prakash Pal has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36064 of 2024 but from the bail rejection order of the co-accused, it reflects that his bail order was rejected on the ground that he was principal accused and on his pointing out blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered.

6. She further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicants that from their possession also blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered.

7. She further submitted that however, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of the applicant no. 1 one wooden stick (not blood stained) was recovered and therefore, case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of Ram Prakash Pal.

8. She further submitted that even law is settled that there can be no parity from the bail rejection order.

9. She further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 8.4.2024 i.e. for last one year.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicant no. 1 is specifically named in the FIR and name of applicant no. 2 was also disclosed by the injured in his statement recorded during investigation.

11. They further submitted that bail application of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of applicant is at par with him but they could not dispute the fact that alongwith applicant no. 1 co-accused Om Prakash and Arvind Pal were also named in the FIR and they have been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with them.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that from the bail rejection order of the co-accused Ram Prakash Pal it reflects his bail application was dismissed on the ground that he appears to be principal accused as on his pointing out one blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered and however, on the pointing out of the applicant no. 1, one wooden stick was recovered but there was no blood stain on it and therefore, case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail for last one year.

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

15. From the record it reflects that applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR while applicant no. 2 is not named in the FIR and he has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of injured recorded during investigation and record also suggests that in the FIR as many as five persons were named including applicant no. 1 and from entire material available on record it reflects that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons and after considering entire facts of the case two co-accused Om Prakash and Arvind Pal have been released on bail by this Court and as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of applicants is also at par with them.

17. Further, however it also reflects that co-ordinate Bench dismissed the bail application of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal and as far as incident of assault is concerned, his case is however also at par with the case of applicants but from bail rejection order of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal which was produced by learned counsel for the informant during argument, it reflects that his bail application was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he appears to be principal accused and on his pointing out, one blood stained weapon was recovered which was allegedly used by him in the alleged incident of assault. No such recovery of blood stained weapon was made from the applicants, however, as per prosecution on the pointing out of applicant no. 1 one wooden stick (not blood stained) was recovered, therefore, it appears case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of Ram Prakash Pal.

19. Further this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that even there can be no parity of the bail rejection order.

20. Further applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicants are in jail for last one year.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

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

23. Let the applicants-Neeraj Pal and Dheeraj Kumar Pal, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. 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 applicants.

25. 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 :- 8.4.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Neeraj Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nayanshri T. Srivastava,Tanya Makker Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kameshwar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Ms. Tanya Makker, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 and 120B IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against five persons including applicant no. 1 and co-accused Arvind Pal and Ram Prakash Pal but during investigation through the statement of the injured applicant no. 2 has also been made accused in the present matter.

4. She further submitted that as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of all the accused including applicants is same and after considering entire facts in detail co-accused Arvind Pal was released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.8.2024 passed in 28913 of 2024 and after considering this fact co-accused Om Prakash Pal who was also named in the FIR has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.3.2025 passed in Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 9106 of 2025.

5. She further submitted that however, bail application of co- accused Ram Prakash Pal has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36064 of 2024 but from the bail rejection order of the co-accused, it reflects that his bail order was rejected on the ground that he was principal accused and on his pointing out blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered.

6. She further submitted that there is no allegation against the applicants that from their possession also blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered.

7. She further submitted that however, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of the applicant no. 1 one wooden stick (not blood stained) was recovered and therefore, case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of Ram Prakash Pal.

8. She further submitted that even law is settled that there can be no parity from the bail rejection order.

9. She further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 8.4.2024 i.e. for last one year.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicant no. 1 is specifically named in the FIR and name of applicant no. 2 was also disclosed by the injured in his statement recorded during investigation.

11. They further submitted that bail application of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of applicant is at par with him but they could not dispute the fact that alongwith applicant no. 1 co-accused Om Prakash and Arvind Pal were also named in the FIR and they have been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with them.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that from the bail rejection order of the co-accused Ram Prakash Pal it reflects his bail application was dismissed on the ground that he appears to be principal accused as on his pointing out one blood stained weapon used in the crime was recovered and however, on the pointing out of the applicant no. 1, one wooden stick was recovered but there was no blood stain on it and therefore, case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail for last one year.

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

15. From the record it reflects that applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR while applicant no. 2 is not named in the FIR and he has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of injured recorded during investigation and record also suggests that in the FIR as many as five persons were named including applicant no. 1 and from entire material available on record it reflects that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons and after considering entire facts of the case two co-accused Om Prakash and Arvind Pal have been released on bail by this Court and as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of applicants is also at par with them.

17. Further, however it also reflects that co-ordinate Bench dismissed the bail application of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal and as far as incident of assault is concerned, his case is however also at par with the case of applicants but from bail rejection order of co-accused Ram Prakash Pal which was produced by learned counsel for the informant during argument, it reflects that his bail application was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he appears to be principal accused and on his pointing out, one blood stained weapon was recovered which was allegedly used by him in the alleged incident of assault. No such recovery of blood stained weapon was made from the applicants, however, as per prosecution on the pointing out of applicant no. 1 one wooden stick (not blood stained) was recovered, therefore, it appears case of applicants is distinguishable from the case of Ram Prakash Pal.

19. Further this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that even there can be no parity of the bail rejection order.

20. Further applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicants are in jail for last one year.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

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

23. Let the applicants-Neeraj Pal and Dheeraj Kumar Pal, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. 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 applicants.

25. 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 :- 8.4.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad