High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54376 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12189 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ajay Kumar, 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. 122 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 326(Cha), 238 BNS, Police Station Ahar, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against six persons (non applicant) and according to the FIR, son of the applicant was having love affair with co-accused Joginderi i.e. daughter of co-accused Bhav Singh and due to this reason, co-accused Bhav Singh alongwith others committed his murder. 5. He further submitted that in the FIR however, name of the applicant has been disclosed but not as an accused and according to the FIR, applicant went alongwith the deceased and in spite of his alarm deceased went on the place where co-accused Joginderi called him but surprisingly when the second statement of the informant was recorded then he stated that when after receiving information he arrived at spot then his son who was in injured condition, informed that actually applicant caused injury to him and therefore, it appears in his second statement recorded during investigation, informant changed the entire version of the FIR. 6. He further submitted that admittedly it is a case in which there is no eye-witness account and entire prosecution story is mainly based upon the alleged information given by deceased before his death but considering the fact that neither such fact was disclosed by informant either in the FIR or in his first statement recorded during information, prima facie, story narrated by him in the second statement appears to be doubtful. 7. He further submitted that when after recording the second statement of informant statements of some neighbours were recorded then they also stated that deceased informed that applicant caused him injuries but as their statements were recorded after the second statement of the informant, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements too. 8. He further submitted that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his house on his pointing out, mobile phone of the deceased and one blood stained wooden stick alleged to have been used in the crime was recovered but entire recovery is forged one. 9. He further submitted that even without any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recovery, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the son of the informant. 10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in that case, applicant is on bail. 11. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 17.10.2024 i.e. for last almost six months. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the first cousin of the deceased and he was alongwith the deceased, therefore, it appears on the basis of information furnished by him informant lodged FIR of the present case but subsequently when deceased himself informed the correct facts then he has been made accused in the present matter. 13. They further submitted that at this stage, it cannot be said that statements of the informant and other witnesses are doubtful. 14. They further submitted that even on the pointing out of the applicant from his house mobile phone of the deceased and blood stained wooden stick used by him in the crime were recovered and therefore, applicant should not be released on bail. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. From the record, it reflects that name of the applicant was however, disclosed in the FIR but not as an accused rather as a friend of the deceased and neither from the FIR nor from the first statement of the informant, it could be reflected that he lodged the FIR of the present case on the basis of information given by the applicant. 17. Further, informant neither in the FIR nor in his first statement recorded during investigation made any allegation against the applicant but he took u-turn when his second statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and in his statement he started making allegation that before his death, deceased informed him that applicant caused injury to him and after his second statement, some other witnesses who were neighbours of the informant also started making similar allegations. Considering these facts second statement of informant and statements of witnesses, prima facie, appear to be doubtful. 18. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out, mobile of the deceased and one blood stained stick were recovered from his home but this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any other cogent and corroborative evidence merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 19. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of a case relates to offence of rape but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in that case, he is on bail. 20. Further, law is settled that if, otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents of an accused, his bail application should be withheld. 21. Further in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 17.10.2024 i.e. for last almost 6 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-Rahul, 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 :- 15.4.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad