High Court · 2025

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 at about 1:54 hours against applicant and three others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR, on 24.05.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the uncle of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR, applicant caused injury to him through spade while others caused injury through bricks and due to assault made by them uncle of the informant sustained injuries.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant and witnesses Islam and Nasir were present at the spot and when injured has been taken to the hospital then he was declared dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 at about 1:54 hours and before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by Khurana S/o Iliyas i.e. brother of the informant and from the inquest report, which has been annexed at page no. 12 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, it reflects, according to him, during fight/quarrel, deceased sustained injuries.

7. He further submitted that even from the inquest report, it reflects, not only informant but named eye-witnesses Nasir and Islam were also the inquest witnesses and it reflects, till preparation of inquest, it was not sure, how deceased sustained injuries but after about 2 hours from the time of inquest, informant cooked up a false story and lodged the FIR of the present case, therefore, prima facie, it appears, FIR is nothing but bundle of false facts.

8. He further submitted that apart from the informant and two above named eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 28.05.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that informant and two witnesses witnessed the incident and they attributed specific role of causing spade injury to the deceased to applicant and post-mortem report also corroborates their version.

11. They however, could not dispute the fact that before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by brother of the informant and according to him, during quarrel deceased sustained injuries and in the inquest, not only informant but two named eye-witnesses also the punch witnesses and after two hours of the inquest, FIR of the present case was lodged. They further could not dispute the fact that except these three eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last almost a year.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant caused spade injury to the deceased and other accused persons caused brick injury to him but it reflects, before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by brother of the informant and from the inquest report, it reflects, according to him, during quarrel, deceased sustained injuries and from the inquest report it also reflects, informant and two named eye-witnesses were the inquest witnesses. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that till preparation of the inquest report, it was not sure, who caused injury to the deceased, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, considering the fact that FIR was lodged after more than 2 hours from the time of inquest, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant also cannot be disbelieved at this stage that after inquest, a false story has been cooked up by the informant and lodged the FIR of the present case.

15. Further, it also reflects apart from the informant, witnesses Islam and Nasir, there is no other eye-witness account.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last almost a year.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. Let the applicant- Firoz 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 13.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 at about 1:54 hours against applicant and three others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR, on 24.05.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the uncle of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR, applicant caused injury to him through spade while others caused injury through bricks and due to assault made by them uncle of the informant sustained injuries.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant and witnesses Islam and Nasir were present at the spot and when injured has been taken to the hospital then he was declared dead.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.05.2024 at about 1:54 hours and before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by Khurana S/o Iliyas i.e. brother of the informant and from the inquest report, which has been annexed at page no. 12 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, it reflects, according to him, during fight/quarrel, deceased sustained injuries.

7. He further submitted that even from the inquest report, it reflects, not only informant but named eye-witnesses Nasir and Islam were also the inquest witnesses and it reflects, till preparation of inquest, it was not sure, how deceased sustained injuries but after about 2 hours from the time of inquest, informant cooked up a false story and lodged the FIR of the present case, therefore, prima facie, it appears, FIR is nothing but bundle of false facts.

8. He further submitted that apart from the informant and two above named eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 28.05.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that informant and two witnesses witnessed the incident and they attributed specific role of causing spade injury to the deceased to applicant and post-mortem report also corroborates their version.

11. They however, could not dispute the fact that before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by brother of the informant and according to him, during quarrel deceased sustained injuries and in the inquest, not only informant but two named eye-witnesses also the punch witnesses and after two hours of the inquest, FIR of the present case was lodged. They further could not dispute the fact that except these three eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last almost a year.

12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant caused spade injury to the deceased and other accused persons caused brick injury to him but it reflects, before lodgment of the FIR, inquest of body of the deceased was prepared on the information given by brother of the informant and from the inquest report, it reflects, according to him, during quarrel, deceased sustained injuries and from the inquest report it also reflects, informant and two named eye-witnesses were the inquest witnesses. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that till preparation of the inquest report, it was not sure, who caused injury to the deceased, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, considering the fact that FIR was lodged after more than 2 hours from the time of inquest, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant also cannot be disbelieved at this stage that after inquest, a false story has been cooked up by the informant and lodged the FIR of the present case.

15. Further, it also reflects apart from the informant, witnesses Islam and Nasir, there is no other eye-witness account.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last almost a year.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. Let the applicant- Firoz 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 13.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad