Ramesh Mishra v. State of UP) filed by the co
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51017 of 2021 Applicant :- Jitendra Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for applicants :- Pratap Kanchan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2905 of 2022 Applicant :- Anurag Mishra @ Ankur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Patel,Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51013 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramesh Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratap Kanchan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. Pratap Kanchan Singh, the learned counsel for applicants- Jitendra Mishra and Ramesh Mishra, Mr. Indrakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant- Anurag Mishra @ Ankur, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for first informant. This application for bail has been filed by applicants Jitendra Mishra, Ramesh Mishra and Anurag Mishra @ Ankur, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case crime No. 115 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Rampur, District Jaunpur during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51017 of 2021 came up for orders on 8.3.2022 and this Court passed the following order:
Legal Reasoning
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant Suresh Mishra involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43649 of 2021 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. FIR has been lodged against 11 named and one unknown person and that in FIR only general role of assaulting the deceased has been attributed to all the accused persons including applicant. As per post-mortem report, deceased has sustained single injury at his head. Learned counsel has pointed out the statement of eye-witnesses namely, Smt Gyanti Devi, Smt. Sundari Mishra and Smt. Krishnavati Devi, who have not assigned any specific role to applicant. Statements of Smt. Gomti Devi, Smt. Shaila and Gaurav Mishra, were also referred, who have inter-alia assigned the role of assaulting the deceased with Gadala at head of deceased to co-accused Ashutosh @ Sintu and it was also alleged that co-accused Nitesh has also given a stick blow at head of deceased. It was submitted that rest of the accused persons including applicant were assigned only general role of assaulting the deceased, whereas, except head injury, deceased has not sustained any other injuries. It was also stated that regarding same incident, the cross FIR was also lodged vide case crime no. 101/2021, under Section 323, 504 IPC. No motive has been attributed to applicant. It has also been submitted that no recovery of any weapon or incriminating article has been made from applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Suresh Misra and Siddhanath @ Siddhinath have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The criminal history of one case was shown against applicant, which has duly been explained in affidavit. Lastly, it has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021 and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been argued by learned counsel for the first informant that applicant is named in FIR and that deceased has sustained serious injuries at his head and that besides the head injuries, deceased has also sustained several other injuries. Learned counsel for the first informant has pointed out that the statement of Dr. Manoj Kumar, who has inter-alia stated that 26 stitches were made on the head injury of deceased. It has also been submitted that recovery of one stick has been made from co-accused Nitesh and Gadala from Ashutosh @ Sintu. It has been submitted that murder of deceased was committed in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Arun Kumar Mishra involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur, district Jaunpur, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42200 of 2021 Applicant :- Siddhanath @ Siddhinath Party Opposite . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. State U.P. of :- This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Siddhanath @ Siddhinath in connection with Case Crime No.115 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur, district Jaunpur. The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against eleven named persons and unknown persons including the applicant. It was alleged in the first information report that on 01.07.2021 at about 7.00 a.m. applicant along with other named persons have assaulted the son of the complainant, who had received injuries in the said incident and has been taken to the hospital for further treatment. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained in supplementary affidavit. He submitted that the co-accused Suresh Mishra has been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by order dated 15.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43704 of 2021, copy whereof has been annexed on page no.11 of the supplementary affidavit and the role assigned to the applicant is similar to the role of the other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.08.2021 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 and also the fact that aforesaid co- accused has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. Let the applicant Siddhanath @ Siddhinath involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses; iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission; v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42359 of 2021 Applicant :- Dayashankar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Heard Sri Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Satish Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dayashankar Mishra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 302 of IPC, registered at P.S. Rampur, District- Jaunpur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that applicant was previously reported to be involved in one case but in the said case his involvement was not found and as such he was exonerated therein. Para 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 08.12.2021 has been placed before this Court. It is further argued that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Suresh Mishra, Siddhanat @ Siddhinath and Arun Kumar Mishra have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 15.11.2021, 2.12.2021 & 17.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail application Nos. 43704 of 2021, 42200 of 2021 and 43649 of 2021, respectively. Copies of the bail orders of the aforesaid accused person have been produced before this Court and the same are taken on record. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is an allegation against him. Although, orders of co- accused persons, who have been granted bail are not disputed. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that three co-accused persons have been granted bail and the case of the applicant is identical to those accused persons. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant Dayashankar Mishra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51014 of 2021 Applicant :- Brajlesh @ Pujari @ Brajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record. Applicant claims to have been implicated falsely in this case. Both the sides lodged the first information reports against each other. Both the sides sustained injuries in the alleged incident. However, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant, whereas, specific role has been assigned to the co- accused Ashutosh @ Sintu who gave blow with iron rod on the head of the deceased Anand Mishra. The role of the applicant cannot be said to the degree that it caused death of the deceased Anand Mishra. Similarly circumstanced co-accused Siddhanath @ Sinddhinath has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 in criminal misc. bail application no.42200 of 2021. In case the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained under paragraph no.28 of the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.08.2021. Learned A.G.A. has opposed prayer for bail. Upon consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Brajlesh @ Pujari @ Brajesh involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Rampur, District Jaunpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52418 of 2021 Applicant :- Nitesh Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Heard Sri Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has not committed present offence. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He is not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated in this case during investigation on the basis of statement of Smt. Gomti Devi, Smt. Shaila and other witnesses interrogated under section 161 Cr.P.C. Referring to the statement of aforesaid witnesses, it is further submitted that the main role of causing head injury has been assigned to co-accused Ashutosh Mishra @ Sintu. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the postmortem report and further argued that cause of death of the deceased is antemortem head injury. It is next submitted that there is cross-version of the present case. Applicant's side have also sustained injuries in the said incident. It is further submitted that co-accused Brajlesh @ Pujari @ Brajesh, Suresh Mishra, Dayashankar Mishra and Siddhanath @ Siddhinath have been allowed on bail vide orders dated 16.2.2022, 15.11.2021, 22.12.2021 & 2.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.51014 of 2021, 43704 of 2021, 42359 of 2021 and 42200 of 2021, respectively. Copies of the bail order of co- accused have been produced before the Court and the same are taken on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2021. All the criminal cases shown as criminal history against the applicant, have been duly explained through the affidavit. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is relative of the main accused. He was also present on the spot and has committed the present offence. At this juncture, learned counsel for the informant has referred to the statement of eye-account witnesses and further argued that specific role has been assigned to the applicant of causing injury to the deceased. It is further submitted that the concerned doctor has also opined that injury found on the body of the deceased was antemortem injury. Thus, more than one injury have been caused by the accused side to the deceased. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the informant has referred to the statement of the doctor concerned as well as postmortem report and further argued that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, applicant cannot be allowed on bail on the ground of parity. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, scrutinizing the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., statement of witnesses, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Nitesh Pandey involved in Case Crime No.115 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Rampur, District - Jaunpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions : 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 4. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. evidence. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants submits that cases of the present applicants are similar and identical to aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, submits that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail orders of aforementioned co-accused, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicants can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny them bail. As such, applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is then contended that as per the post mortem report, deceased has sustained only one head injury. As per the statements of three eye witnesses namely, Gomti Devi, Shaila and Gaurav Mishra, the author of the fatal head injury sustained by deceased was identified as Ashutosh Mishra. As such, case of present applicant is distinguishable from aforementioned co- accused. Learned counsel for applicants next contend that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. It is further contended that applicants- Jitendra Mishra and Anurag Mishra @ Ankur are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except to present one whereas, applicant-Ramesh Mishra has criminal history of one case, which has been duly explained in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant- Jitendra Mishra is in jail since 11.8.2021. As such, he has undergone more than seven months of incarceration. Applicant- Anurag Mishra @ Ankur is in jail since 16.12.2021. As such, he three months of has undergone more incarceration. Applicant- Ramesh Mishra is in jail since 10.8.2021. As such, he has undergone more than seven months of incarceration. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. than Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused. They therefore do not deserve any indulgence of this Court. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for first informant, contends that deceased has sustained grievous and fatal injuries. On his head as many as 26 stitches were made to heal the wound sustained by deceased. In view of above, no indulgence be extended by this Court in favour of present applicants. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicants and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail applications are allowed. Let the applicants Jitendra Mishra, Ramesh Mishra and Anurag Mishra @ Ankur, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 21.4.2022 Arshad
Arguments
"Heard Mr. Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State. At the very outset, learned AGA contends that two bail applications being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2905 of 2022 (Anurag Mishra @ Ankur Vs. State of UP) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51013 of 2021 (Ramesh Mishra Vs. State of UP) filed by the co-accused, are already pending before this Court. In view of above, connect the aforementioned bail applications alongwith the present bail application. Matter shall reappear as fresh on 10.03.2022 alongwith the connected cases." Pursuant to aforesaid order, all the bail applications referred to above have been connected and listed together. Since all the bail applications arise out of the same case crime number, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by a common order. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 1.7.2021, a prompt F.I.R. dated 1.7.2021 was lodged by first informant Gyanti Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station-Rampur, District Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. 11 persons namely, Ashutosh Mishra, Brijlesh @ Pujari, Ramesh, Suresh, Jitendra, Arun, Anurag @ Ankur, Vipul, Daya Shanker, Sidhnath, Ajay @ Suny have been nominated as named accused, whereas one unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in aforesaid F.I.R. is to the effect that on 1.7.2021, named accused alongwith unknown accused with a common object started keeping bricks infront of the temple. Aforesaid act was objected by son of first informant. On account of above, scuffle took place. Thereafter, named accused assaulted the son of first informant namely, Anand on account of which he sustained injuries. Injured was admitted to Pratima Hospital, Bhadohi, where his condition is said to be serious. Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During pendency of investigation, injured Anand Mishra died on 31.7.2021. The inquest of body of deceased was conducted thereafter on 31.7.2021 itself. In the opinion of panch witnesses (witness of iniquest), the nature of death of deceased was characterized as homicidal. Thereafter, post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was quoma as a result of ante-mortem head injuries. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased: "Surgical stich wound U shape in 28 cm with 26 cm stiches side head tempo parital ant. frontal area touching to lt ear and midline. On opening scalp and skull carry out brain and temporal bone absent and subdural extra dural hematoma present." During course of Investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses namely, Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Manoj Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Chintamani Mishra, Rajendra Kumar Mishra in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, Investigating Officer on the basis of statements of witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected by him during course of investigation opined that complicity of named accused Nitesh Pandey was established in crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted charge sheet dated 23.8.2021, whereby named accused namely, Ashutosh Mishra, Brajesh, Ramesh Mishra, Suresh misra, Jitendra Misra, Arun Misra, Daya Shankar Misra, Siddharth Misra and not named accused Nitesh Pandey have been charge sheeted under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302, 34 IPC. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants contends that named accused namely, Suresh Mishra, Arun Kumar Mishra, Siddhanath @ Siddhinath, Dayashankar Mishra and Brajlesh @ Pujari @ Brajesh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide their separate orders. Photo copy of their bail orders have been placed before court, which are taken on record. Same are reproduced herein under: "Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43704 of 2021 Applicant :- Suresh Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Heard Sri Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Abhianv Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that there is a cross case of the alleged incident and the applicant's side have also received injuries in the alleged incident, however, the aggressor of the alleged incident is not known. It is further submitted that a N.C.R. was also lodged from the side of the applicant which was registered as N.C.R. No.101/2021, under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that neither any role or weapon has been assigned to the applicant as the same has been assigned to the co- accused Ashutosh Mishra. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.8.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.