High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to murder of the son of the informant but during investigation when the statement of the informant was recorded then he started making accusation against the applicant by stating that he himself witnessed the applicant along with the deceased on the date of incident.

5. He further submits that apart from the above evidence of last seen there is statement of one Shyamsundar Kushwaha, who claimed himself to be an eye witness and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased by causing 'banka' injuries but his statement was recorded after ten days. He next submits that even this witness appears to be chance witness and his statement does not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submits that however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 12 other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 27.4.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application and it reflects that except the case under Section 307 IPC, all other cases relate to minor offence and majority of cases were old one and even case under Section 307 IPC was lodged by witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha, who claimed himself to be eye witness and in that case applicant has already been acquitted. He further submits, it reflects that only due to previous enmity he stated against the applicant when his statement was recorded after ten days.

7. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than ten months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons but from the contents of the FIR it reflects that informant disclosed the fact that deceased was last seen along with applicant and co- accused and, therefore, it cannot be said that for the first time informant in his statement disclosed the fact that applicant was last seen along with the deceased.

9. They further submitted that witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha was the eye witness and he categorically stated that applicant by causing injuries committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that this witness appears to be chance witness and his statement was recorded after ten days.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that earlier in the year 1998 witness Shyamsunder lodged FIR against the applicant under Section 307 IPC however, in that case applicant has already been acquitted.

11. They, however, further submitted that applicant is a hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of 12 other cases but they also could not dispute the fact that majority of cases related to minor offences and were old one and in case under Section 307 IPC, he has already been acquitted.

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

13. However, initially from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects that informant tried to give evidence of last seen against the applicant but during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Shyamsundar Kushwaha then he claimed himself to be an eye witness and stated that by causing injuries he committed the murder of the deceased but the statement of this witness was recorded after ten days and this witness is even chance witness. Further, even the statement of this witness prima facie does not appear to be convincing.

14. Further, record also suggests that earlier in the year 1998 this witness lodged FIR against the applicant under Section 307 IPC and, therefore, this witness also appears to be inimical with the applicant.

15. Further, the evidence of last seen also prima facie does not appear to be convincing.

16. Further, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 12 other cases but his criminal history has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and except a case under Section 307 IPC, all the cases relate to minor offences and majority of cases were old one.

17. Further, in the case under Section 307 IPC which was lodged by eye witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha applicant has been acquitted.

18. Further, law is also settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

20.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than ten months.

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

21.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is 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 applicant-Pramod Singh 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.

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 applicant.

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 :- 20.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to murder of the son of the informant but during investigation when the statement of the informant was recorded then he started making accusation against the applicant by stating that he himself witnessed the applicant along with the deceased on the date of incident.

5. He further submits that apart from the above evidence of last seen there is statement of one Shyamsundar Kushwaha, who claimed himself to be an eye witness and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased by causing 'banka' injuries but his statement was recorded after ten days. He next submits that even this witness appears to be chance witness and his statement does not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submits that however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 12 other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 27.4.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application and it reflects that except the case under Section 307 IPC, all other cases relate to minor offence and majority of cases were old one and even case under Section 307 IPC was lodged by witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha, who claimed himself to be eye witness and in that case applicant has already been acquitted. He further submits, it reflects that only due to previous enmity he stated against the applicant when his statement was recorded after ten days.

7. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than ten months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons but from the contents of the FIR it reflects that informant disclosed the fact that deceased was last seen along with applicant and co- accused and, therefore, it cannot be said that for the first time informant in his statement disclosed the fact that applicant was last seen along with the deceased.

9. They further submitted that witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha was the eye witness and he categorically stated that applicant by causing injuries committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that this witness appears to be chance witness and his statement was recorded after ten days.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that earlier in the year 1998 witness Shyamsunder lodged FIR against the applicant under Section 307 IPC however, in that case applicant has already been acquitted.

11. They, however, further submitted that applicant is a hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of 12 other cases but they also could not dispute the fact that majority of cases related to minor offences and were old one and in case under Section 307 IPC, he has already been acquitted.

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

13. However, initially from the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects that informant tried to give evidence of last seen against the applicant but during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Shyamsundar Kushwaha then he claimed himself to be an eye witness and stated that by causing injuries he committed the murder of the deceased but the statement of this witness was recorded after ten days and this witness is even chance witness. Further, even the statement of this witness prima facie does not appear to be convincing.

14. Further, record also suggests that earlier in the year 1998 this witness lodged FIR against the applicant under Section 307 IPC and, therefore, this witness also appears to be inimical with the applicant.

15. Further, the evidence of last seen also prima facie does not appear to be convincing.

16. Further, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 12 other cases but his criminal history has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and except a case under Section 307 IPC, all the cases relate to minor offences and majority of cases were old one.

17. Further, in the case under Section 307 IPC which was lodged by eye witness Shyamsundar Kushwaha applicant has been acquitted.

18. Further, law is also settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

20.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than ten months.

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

21.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is 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 applicant-Pramod Singh 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.

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 applicant.

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 :- 20.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad