High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Samir Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on the applicant submitted that however applicant was named in the FIR alongwith others and as per allegation he was the accused who by causing fire arm injury to the uncle of the informant committed his murder but entire allegation, levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that as per prosecution incident is said to have been taken place on 25.12.2024 at 10:15 pm in the night but FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.6.2025 at 23:35 hours i.e after more than 24 hours and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that it is nothing but bundle of false facts and only due to previous enmity applicant has been roped in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that from the record it also reflects that at the time of incident one Ratan Singh was alongwith the deceased and however, when statement of Ratan Singh was recorded during investigation then he attributed the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased to the applicant but from the record, it also reflects that Ratan Singh was the person who immediately after the incident has taken the deceased to the hospital in an ambulance and at that time in the hospital, he informed that some unknown person caused injury to the deceased and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry dated 26.6.2024 time 00:27 hours and this fact completely belies the statement of this witness recorded during investigation.

6. He further submitted that GD entry dated 26.6.2024 has been annexed at page 20 0f the paper book.

7. He further submitted that however as per prosecution apart from witness Ratan Singh, one Manjit Singh also witnessed the incident but his statement appears to be doubtful as the same was recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. for more than one and half months and this fact clearly suggest that actually he was not the eye witness but at subsequent stage, Investigating Officer introduced him.

8. He further submitted that from the record it reflects that actually no one could see the real incident and only due to previous enmity after the death of the deceased applicant has been roped in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was the principal accused who caused fire arm injury to the deceased and committed his murder and this fact is evident from the statement of Ratan Singh who was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident and even from the statement of Manjeet Singh but they could not dispute the fact that statement of Manjeet Singh was recorded after more than one and half months.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that however Ratan Singh is the person who claimed that applicant by causing fire arm injury committed murder of the deceased but when he after the incident had taken the deceased to the hospital then he in the hospital he informed that some unknown person committed his murder.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that even FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant is principal accused who by causing fire arm injury to the deceased committed his murder and it appears that incident has been allegedly witnessed by witnesses Ratan Singh and Manjeet Singh but as far as statement of Manjeet Singh is concerned his statement was recorded after more than one and half months.

15. Further, however, as per prosecution Ratan Singh was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident but from the record it reflects that when immediately after the incident he had taken the deceased to the hospital through ambulance then in the hospital he informed that some unknown person committed murder of the deceased. Considering this fact, the fact that he recognized the real culprit appears to be doubtful, specially considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours.

16. Further, enmity between both the sides are admitted and considering over all facts and circumstances of the cases, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a blind murder and it reflects after murder of the deceased when real culprits could not be identified then only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter, can not be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2024 i.e. for last more than 10 months.

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

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

20. Let the applicant-Pintu @ Amit, 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Samir Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on the applicant submitted that however applicant was named in the FIR alongwith others and as per allegation he was the accused who by causing fire arm injury to the uncle of the informant committed his murder but entire allegation, levelled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submitted that as per prosecution incident is said to have been taken place on 25.12.2024 at 10:15 pm in the night but FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.6.2025 at 23:35 hours i.e after more than 24 hours and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that it is nothing but bundle of false facts and only due to previous enmity applicant has been roped in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that from the record it also reflects that at the time of incident one Ratan Singh was alongwith the deceased and however, when statement of Ratan Singh was recorded during investigation then he attributed the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased to the applicant but from the record, it also reflects that Ratan Singh was the person who immediately after the incident has taken the deceased to the hospital in an ambulance and at that time in the hospital, he informed that some unknown person caused injury to the deceased and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry dated 26.6.2024 time 00:27 hours and this fact completely belies the statement of this witness recorded during investigation.

6. He further submitted that GD entry dated 26.6.2024 has been annexed at page 20 0f the paper book.

7. He further submitted that however as per prosecution apart from witness Ratan Singh, one Manjit Singh also witnessed the incident but his statement appears to be doubtful as the same was recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. for more than one and half months and this fact clearly suggest that actually he was not the eye witness but at subsequent stage, Investigating Officer introduced him.

8. He further submitted that from the record it reflects that actually no one could see the real incident and only due to previous enmity after the death of the deceased applicant has been roped in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was the principal accused who caused fire arm injury to the deceased and committed his murder and this fact is evident from the statement of Ratan Singh who was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident and even from the statement of Manjeet Singh but they could not dispute the fact that statement of Manjeet Singh was recorded after more than one and half months.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that however Ratan Singh is the person who claimed that applicant by causing fire arm injury committed murder of the deceased but when he after the incident had taken the deceased to the hospital then he in the hospital he informed that some unknown person committed his murder.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that even FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours.

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

14. However, as per allegation applicant is principal accused who by causing fire arm injury to the deceased committed his murder and it appears that incident has been allegedly witnessed by witnesses Ratan Singh and Manjeet Singh but as far as statement of Manjeet Singh is concerned his statement was recorded after more than one and half months.

15. Further, however, as per prosecution Ratan Singh was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident but from the record it reflects that when immediately after the incident he had taken the deceased to the hospital through ambulance then in the hospital he informed that some unknown person committed murder of the deceased. Considering this fact, the fact that he recognized the real culprit appears to be doubtful, specially considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours.

16. Further, enmity between both the sides are admitted and considering over all facts and circumstances of the cases, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a blind murder and it reflects after murder of the deceased when real culprits could not be identified then only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter, can not be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2024 i.e. for last more than 10 months.

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

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

20. Let the applicant-Pintu @ Amit, 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.

21. 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.

22. 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