High Court · 2025

2. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 638 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 3(5), 333, 352, 115(2), 351(3), 103(1), 118(1) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba, 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 four persons (non applicants) and as per FIR on 7.12.2024 at about 8 pm in the night named accused after entering in the house made assault due to which one person died and two persons sustained injuries but when the statement of informant was recorded under section 180 BNSS then he disclosed the name of applicant by stating that applicant also participated in the alleged crime alongwith named accused and this fact shows, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused.

5. She further submitted that even in the FIR and the statement of the informant he attributed only general role to the accused.

6. She further submitted that when the statement of injured Piyush was recorded then he however, also disclosed the name of applicant but admittedly his statement was recorded after the statement of informant. She further submitted that even from his statement, it reflects that applicant and co-accused Vinod were having wooden sticks and from the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects, he sustained as many as three incised wounds on his chest and although, he sustained one lacerated wound too but it appears, he died due to injury caused by sharp edged weapon and therefore, applicant cannot be held responsible for his death.

7. She further submitted that it appears, during investigation, applicant has been roped in the present matter only because he was father of named co-accused Adesh. She further submitted that however, in the incident two others also sustained injuries but their injuries were simple in nature.

8. She further submitted that however, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but all the cases relates to provision of Excise Act and he is in jail in the present matter since 12.12.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but immediately after lodgement of the FIR even before recording his statement, informant moved an application to the police and disclosed the name of applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that subsequently due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter through the statement of the informant.

10. They however could not dispute the fact that as per witnesses including injured witness applicant was having wooden stick and however, deceased sustained one lacerated wound too but other accused persons were also having wooden stick and deceased sustained as many as three incised wounds and it appears he died due to incised ante mortem injuries.

11. They however further submitted that on the pointing out of the applicant, one wooden stick was also recovered which was having blood marks but they could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record which can show that the alleged blood found on the wooden stick was of even human blood.

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

13. However, from the statement of the informant it reflects, applicant alongwith others made assault due which one person died and two persons sustained injuries but surprisingly, informant did not disclose the name of the applicant in the FIR of the present case.

14. Further, even from the statement of the other witnesses including injured witness, it reflects that applicant and some other accused were having wooden sticks and deceased although sustained one lacerated wound but there is no evidence that applicant caused this injury to him.

15. Further, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained three incised wounds on his chest and it reflects that deceased died due to these injuries and there is no allegation that applicant was having any sharp edged weapon.

16. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained wooden stick was recovered but till date, there is no evidence on record which can suggest that even the alleged blood was human blood.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but all these cases relate to provisions of Excise Act.

18. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.12.2024.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Nandram Ahirwar, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 19.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 638 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 3(5), 333, 352, 115(2), 351(3), 103(1), 118(1) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba, 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 four persons (non applicants) and as per FIR on 7.12.2024 at about 8 pm in the night named accused after entering in the house made assault due to which one person died and two persons sustained injuries but when the statement of informant was recorded under section 180 BNSS then he disclosed the name of applicant by stating that applicant also participated in the alleged crime alongwith named accused and this fact shows, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused.

5. She further submitted that even in the FIR and the statement of the informant he attributed only general role to the accused.

6. She further submitted that when the statement of injured Piyush was recorded then he however, also disclosed the name of applicant but admittedly his statement was recorded after the statement of informant. She further submitted that even from his statement, it reflects that applicant and co-accused Vinod were having wooden sticks and from the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects, he sustained as many as three incised wounds on his chest and although, he sustained one lacerated wound too but it appears, he died due to injury caused by sharp edged weapon and therefore, applicant cannot be held responsible for his death.

7. She further submitted that it appears, during investigation, applicant has been roped in the present matter only because he was father of named co-accused Adesh. She further submitted that however, in the incident two others also sustained injuries but their injuries were simple in nature.

8. She further submitted that however, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but all the cases relates to provision of Excise Act and he is in jail in the present matter since 12.12.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but immediately after lodgement of the FIR even before recording his statement, informant moved an application to the police and disclosed the name of applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that subsequently due to previous enmity, applicant has been roped in the present matter through the statement of the informant.

10. They however could not dispute the fact that as per witnesses including injured witness applicant was having wooden stick and however, deceased sustained one lacerated wound too but other accused persons were also having wooden stick and deceased sustained as many as three incised wounds and it appears he died due to incised ante mortem injuries.

11. They however further submitted that on the pointing out of the applicant, one wooden stick was also recovered which was having blood marks but they could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record which can show that the alleged blood found on the wooden stick was of even human blood.

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

13. However, from the statement of the informant it reflects, applicant alongwith others made assault due which one person died and two persons sustained injuries but surprisingly, informant did not disclose the name of the applicant in the FIR of the present case.

14. Further, even from the statement of the other witnesses including injured witness, it reflects that applicant and some other accused were having wooden sticks and deceased although sustained one lacerated wound but there is no evidence that applicant caused this injury to him.

15. Further, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained three incised wounds on his chest and it reflects that deceased died due to these injuries and there is no allegation that applicant was having any sharp edged weapon.

16. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained wooden stick was recovered but till date, there is no evidence on record which can suggest that even the alleged blood was human blood.

17. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but all these cases relate to provisions of Excise Act.

18. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.12.2024.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Nandram Ahirwar, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 19.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad