High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 107 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Surajpur, District Central (Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar) during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.02.2025 at 13.24 hours against applicant and co-accused Shivam and their unknown associates and according to the FIR on 17.02.2025 son of the informant had gone in the field of Food Plaza where his altercation took place with applicant and co-accused Shivam and thereafter his son called the grand son of the informant for help and when his grand son arrived at the field of Food Plaza then son of the informant was not present there and subsequently next day on 18.02.2025 at 10.30 AM in the morning his dead body was found near the Food Plaza from a room.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly neither informant nor his grand son could witness the real incident. He further submits, it appears, merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been made accused in the FIR along with co-accused Shivam.

5. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, informant found the dead body of the deceased on 18.02.2025 at 10.30 AM in the morning but from the inquest report it reflects, dead body was recovered on 18.02.2025 at 12.31 PM in the afternoon and this fact completely belies the version of the FIR that dead body of the deceased was recovered by the informant and his grand son at 10.30 AM in the morning and therefore it appears, FIR is based on false and incorrect facts.

6. He further submits, merely on the basis of suspicion raised in the FIR applicant has been arrested and even from the possession of applicant and two others recovery of cricket bat and brick have been shown by which, allegedly they committed the murder of the deceased and after that suddenly in the present case three eye witnesses appeared namely Rohit S/o Madan Singh, Rohit S/o Ravindra and Vikas @ Golu and thereafter Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of some other eye witnesses on 24.02.2025 and all these facts clearly suggests that subsequently Investigating Officer introduced these eye witnesses.

7. He further submits, even from statements of eye witnesses, it reflects, they gave photographic description of the incident and their statements are verbatim and this fact clearly suggests that actually they could not see the real incident and subsequently they have been introduced as eye witnesses.

8. He further submits, if they would have been witnessed the real incident then immediately after the FIR their statements would have definitely been recorded by the Investigating Officer but the statements of three witnesses were recorded after two days and statements of other two witnesses were recorded after six days. He further submits, in fact there was no eye witness account and as dispute arose between applicant and deceased and therefore applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submits, even from the post mortem report, it reflects, there was no intention of accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. He further submits, post mortem although suggests that deceased sustained six injuries but injury nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were minor abrasions and contusions and deceased died due to head injury. He further submits, even statements of alleged eye witnesses do not find corroboration with the post mortem report.

10. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.02.2025.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted there are several eye witnesses and all the eye witnesses categorically stated that applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased but he could not dispute the fact that statement of three eye witnesses were recorded on 20.02.2025 i.e. after two days and statements of other eye witnesses were recorded on 24.02.2025 i.e. after six days and there is no explanation why so belatedly their statements were recorded if they were the eye witnesses.

12. Learned AGA however further pointed out that apart from the eye witness account on the pointing out of the applicant and other accused weapon used in the crime was also recovered but learned AGA fairly conceded that on the alleged weapon no blood was found and till date the alleged weapon could not be connected with the instant crime.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, from the record, it reflects, there are number of eye witnesses but from the statements of these eye witnesses it appears, their statements were recorded on 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 i.e. after two days and six days after the alleged incident and it appears, till recording of their statements it is nowhere on record that they were the eye witnesses. Further, even from their statements, it reflects, they tried to give photographic description of the incident.

16. Further, from their statements it also reflects, according to them applicant and other accused persons badly beaten the deceased and however post mortem report suggests deceased sustained six injuries but except injury nos.1 and 2 all the injuries were minor abrasions and contusions and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even statements of eye witnesses do not find corroboration from the post mortem report can also not be completely brushed aside at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that merely on the basis of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the FIR of the present case and merely on the basis of suspicion even before statements of alleged eye witnesses he has been arrested along with other accused and this fact again cast doubt on the prosecution case that the incident has been witnessed by number of eye witnesses.

18. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie it appears no one could see the real incident and subsequently all the eye witnesses have been introduced by the Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, there is also discrepancy in the version of the FIR and inquest report so far as recovery of the dead body of the deceased is concerned.

20. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.02.2025.

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 - Anuj 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 :- 27.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 107 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Surajpur, District Central (Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar) during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.02.2025 at 13.24 hours against applicant and co-accused Shivam and their unknown associates and according to the FIR on 17.02.2025 son of the informant had gone in the field of Food Plaza where his altercation took place with applicant and co-accused Shivam and thereafter his son called the grand son of the informant for help and when his grand son arrived at the field of Food Plaza then son of the informant was not present there and subsequently next day on 18.02.2025 at 10.30 AM in the morning his dead body was found near the Food Plaza from a room.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly neither informant nor his grand son could witness the real incident. He further submits, it appears, merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been made accused in the FIR along with co-accused Shivam.

5. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, informant found the dead body of the deceased on 18.02.2025 at 10.30 AM in the morning but from the inquest report it reflects, dead body was recovered on 18.02.2025 at 12.31 PM in the afternoon and this fact completely belies the version of the FIR that dead body of the deceased was recovered by the informant and his grand son at 10.30 AM in the morning and therefore it appears, FIR is based on false and incorrect facts.

6. He further submits, merely on the basis of suspicion raised in the FIR applicant has been arrested and even from the possession of applicant and two others recovery of cricket bat and brick have been shown by which, allegedly they committed the murder of the deceased and after that suddenly in the present case three eye witnesses appeared namely Rohit S/o Madan Singh, Rohit S/o Ravindra and Vikas @ Golu and thereafter Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of some other eye witnesses on 24.02.2025 and all these facts clearly suggests that subsequently Investigating Officer introduced these eye witnesses.

7. He further submits, even from statements of eye witnesses, it reflects, they gave photographic description of the incident and their statements are verbatim and this fact clearly suggests that actually they could not see the real incident and subsequently they have been introduced as eye witnesses.

8. He further submits, if they would have been witnessed the real incident then immediately after the FIR their statements would have definitely been recorded by the Investigating Officer but the statements of three witnesses were recorded after two days and statements of other two witnesses were recorded after six days. He further submits, in fact there was no eye witness account and as dispute arose between applicant and deceased and therefore applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submits, even from the post mortem report, it reflects, there was no intention of accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. He further submits, post mortem although suggests that deceased sustained six injuries but injury nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were minor abrasions and contusions and deceased died due to head injury. He further submits, even statements of alleged eye witnesses do not find corroboration with the post mortem report.

10. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.02.2025.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted there are several eye witnesses and all the eye witnesses categorically stated that applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased but he could not dispute the fact that statement of three eye witnesses were recorded on 20.02.2025 i.e. after two days and statements of other eye witnesses were recorded on 24.02.2025 i.e. after six days and there is no explanation why so belatedly their statements were recorded if they were the eye witnesses.

12. Learned AGA however further pointed out that apart from the eye witness account on the pointing out of the applicant and other accused weapon used in the crime was also recovered but learned AGA fairly conceded that on the alleged weapon no blood was found and till date the alleged weapon could not be connected with the instant crime.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, from the record, it reflects, there are number of eye witnesses but from the statements of these eye witnesses it appears, their statements were recorded on 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 i.e. after two days and six days after the alleged incident and it appears, till recording of their statements it is nowhere on record that they were the eye witnesses. Further, even from their statements, it reflects, they tried to give photographic description of the incident.

16. Further, from their statements it also reflects, according to them applicant and other accused persons badly beaten the deceased and however post mortem report suggests deceased sustained six injuries but except injury nos.1 and 2 all the injuries were minor abrasions and contusions and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even statements of eye witnesses do not find corroboration from the post mortem report can also not be completely brushed aside at this stage.

17. Further, record also suggests that merely on the basis of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the FIR of the present case and merely on the basis of suspicion even before statements of alleged eye witnesses he has been arrested along with other accused and this fact again cast doubt on the prosecution case that the incident has been witnessed by number of eye witnesses.

18. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie it appears no one could see the real incident and subsequently all the eye witnesses have been introduced by the Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out at this stage.

19. Further, there is also discrepancy in the version of the FIR and inquest report so far as recovery of the dead body of the deceased is concerned.

20. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.02.2025.

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 - Anuj 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 :- 27.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad