High Court · 2025

2. As both the instant bail applications arise from the same FIR, therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.

3. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appliant- Arhand, Sri Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel for the applicant- Alishan Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.46 of 2025, under Sections 333, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 and 3(5) BNS, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.1.2025 at about 19.37 hours against the applicants and co-accused Talhar and as per allegation made in the FIR on 28.1.2025 at about 2.15 PM in the afternoon applicants and co-accused Talhar inflicted knife injuries to the informant, his nephew Mohsin and son Anas and due to injuries subsequently his son Anas died.

4. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that however, applicants are named in the FIR but on the basis of false allegation they have been made accused along with co-accused Talhar.

5. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that immediately after the alleged incident informant, who was himself injured of the case has taken his nephew and son to the Police Station and thereafter he has taken the seriously injured persons to the Hospital but from page 28 of the paper book of the case of applicant-Arshad it reflects that informant admitted his son Anas in the Hospital on 28.1.2025 at 2.45 PM and as by that time Anas has already died therefore, an information in this regard has been sent by the Hospital to the Police Station concerned which is evident from page 32 of the paper book of the case of applicant Arshad and thereafter inquest report was prepared and after that at

19.37 hours on 28.1.2025 FIR of the present case was lodged and all these facts clearly suggests that FIR is based on false facts and till preparation of the inquest report it was not clear that who committed the murder of the deceased.

6. They further submitted that however, informant and his nephew are the injured of the present case and according to the prosecution case they also sustained knife injuries but from their medical reports which have been annexed along with the bail applications it reflects that they did not sustain any injury which could be caused by sharp edged weapon and, therefore, it reflects that they did not sustain injuries as alleged in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses and this fact clearly suggests that actually they did not sustain injuries in the alleged assault made by applicants and co-accused Talhar.

7. They further submitted that actually it is a case in which there is no eye witness and subsequently at this belated stage FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants and other accused only due to previous dispute arose between both sides on the same day.

8. They further submitted that applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 29.1.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is broad day light incident and informant and his nephew also sustained injuries and they are the injured witnesses and from the FIR as well as from their statements it is apparent that applicants along with co-accused Talhar by causing knife injuries committed the murder of the deceased and post mortem report also corroborates the prosecution case.

10. They further submitted that from the medical reports of both the injured however it reflects that they sustained injuries by hard and blunt object but even from the FIR and other materials available on record it could not be reflected that they sustained injuries only by knife.

11. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that applicants and other accused were also having wooden sticks in their hands and therefore, even if both the above injured sustained injuries by hard and blunt object then merely on this ground entire prosecution case cannot be discarded at this stage. They further submitted that considering the nature of allegation made against the applicant and other material available on record, applicants do not deserve bail and their bail applications should be dismissed.

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

13. Applicants are named in the FIR along with co-accused Talhar and as per allegation they by causing knife injuries committed murder of the deceased and in the incident informant and his nephew also sustained injuries.

14. Further, post mortem report fully corroborates the version of the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses.

15. Further, from the medical reports of the injured persons it reflects that they sustained injuries by hard and blunt object and from the statement of the injured Mohsin recorded during investigation it reflects that he sustained injuries through knife too but from the FIR it reflects that accused persons were also having wooden sticks in their hands and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant cannot be ruled out at this stage and this Court is of the view that only on this minor discrepancy, if any, entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out at this stage.

16. Further, alleged incident of murder occurred in broad day light and there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the eye witness and injured witnesses.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, the both the instant bail applications are hereby rejected.

19. 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 :- 23.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. As both the instant bail applications arise from the same FIR, therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.

3. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appliant- Arhand, Sri Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel for the applicant- Alishan Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.46 of 2025, under Sections 333, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 and 3(5) BNS, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 28.1.2025 at about 19.37 hours against the applicants and co-accused Talhar and as per allegation made in the FIR on 28.1.2025 at about 2.15 PM in the afternoon applicants and co-accused Talhar inflicted knife injuries to the informant, his nephew Mohsin and son Anas and due to injuries subsequently his son Anas died.

4. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that however, applicants are named in the FIR but on the basis of false allegation they have been made accused along with co-accused Talhar.

5. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that immediately after the alleged incident informant, who was himself injured of the case has taken his nephew and son to the Police Station and thereafter he has taken the seriously injured persons to the Hospital but from page 28 of the paper book of the case of applicant-Arshad it reflects that informant admitted his son Anas in the Hospital on 28.1.2025 at 2.45 PM and as by that time Anas has already died therefore, an information in this regard has been sent by the Hospital to the Police Station concerned which is evident from page 32 of the paper book of the case of applicant Arshad and thereafter inquest report was prepared and after that at

19.37 hours on 28.1.2025 FIR of the present case was lodged and all these facts clearly suggests that FIR is based on false facts and till preparation of the inquest report it was not clear that who committed the murder of the deceased.

6. They further submitted that however, informant and his nephew are the injured of the present case and according to the prosecution case they also sustained knife injuries but from their medical reports which have been annexed along with the bail applications it reflects that they did not sustain any injury which could be caused by sharp edged weapon and, therefore, it reflects that they did not sustain injuries as alleged in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses and this fact clearly suggests that actually they did not sustain injuries in the alleged assault made by applicants and co-accused Talhar.

7. They further submitted that actually it is a case in which there is no eye witness and subsequently at this belated stage FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants and other accused only due to previous dispute arose between both sides on the same day.

8. They further submitted that applicants are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 29.1.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is broad day light incident and informant and his nephew also sustained injuries and they are the injured witnesses and from the FIR as well as from their statements it is apparent that applicants along with co-accused Talhar by causing knife injuries committed the murder of the deceased and post mortem report also corroborates the prosecution case.

10. They further submitted that from the medical reports of both the injured however it reflects that they sustained injuries by hard and blunt object but even from the FIR and other materials available on record it could not be reflected that they sustained injuries only by knife.

11. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that applicants and other accused were also having wooden sticks in their hands and therefore, even if both the above injured sustained injuries by hard and blunt object then merely on this ground entire prosecution case cannot be discarded at this stage. They further submitted that considering the nature of allegation made against the applicant and other material available on record, applicants do not deserve bail and their bail applications should be dismissed.

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

13. Applicants are named in the FIR along with co-accused Talhar and as per allegation they by causing knife injuries committed murder of the deceased and in the incident informant and his nephew also sustained injuries.

14. Further, post mortem report fully corroborates the version of the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses.

15. Further, from the medical reports of the injured persons it reflects that they sustained injuries by hard and blunt object and from the statement of the injured Mohsin recorded during investigation it reflects that he sustained injuries through knife too but from the FIR it reflects that accused persons were also having wooden sticks in their hands and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant cannot be ruled out at this stage and this Court is of the view that only on this minor discrepancy, if any, entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out at this stage.

16. Further, alleged incident of murder occurred in broad day light and there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the eye witness and injured witnesses.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, the both the instant bail applications are hereby rejected.

19. 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 :- 23.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad