High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 351(3), 352, 109(1), 115(2), 324(2), 103(1) BNS, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 1.11.2024 against 10 named (non applicant) and some unknown person and according to the FIR on 31.10.2024 at about 20:00 p.m. nominated accused persons alongwith their unknown associates made assault through wooden sticks, iron rod and axe and due to the assault made by them number of persons sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 109 BNS and other offences but after the death of two injured persons namely Pawan and Jitendra Pratap Dubey, case has been converted under section 103(1) BNS.

5. He further submitted that however, it is a case in which as per prosecution two persons died and eight persons sustained injuries but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation neither informant nor two injured Rajendra Prasad Dubey and Indra Kumar Dubey disclosed his name in their statements but when after four days, before his death statement of one of the injured since deceased Jitendra Prasad Dubey was recorded then he although very categorically stated that on 31.10.2024 at 8 pm accused persons made assault but in this portion of his statement, he did not disclose the name of applicant but at the end of his statement, he very casually introduced the applicant by stating that he also involved in the present crime alongwith others and thereafter when the statements of other witnesses were recorded including injured witnesses then they also started making allegation against the applicant alongwith others but the statements of other injured witnesses were recorded after more than two weeks and even from their statements it reflects that they assigned only general role to the applicant and other accused. He further submitted that all these facts clearly suggests that applicant during investigation very casually has been made accused.

6. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which two persons died and as many as 8 persons sustained injuries and even deceased Jitendra Prasad Dubey before his death disclosed the name of the applicant in his statement recorded during investigation and thereafter when the statements of other injured persons were recorded then they also stated that applicant involved in the present crime alongwith others but they could not dispute the fact that from the statement of injured Jitendra Prasad Dubey since deceased, it reflects that initially he did not make any allegation, against the applicant with regard to the incident dated 31.10.2024 but at the end of his statement, he very casually introduced the applicant by stating that applicant also involved in the present crime.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that name of the applicant could not be disclosed in the present matter either in the statement of informant or in the statements of two injured Rajendra Kumar Dubey and Indra Kumar Dubey recorded under section 180 BNSS.

9. They further could not dispute the fact that however, other injured persons after the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey started making allegation against the applicant but their statements were recorded after more than two weeks.

10. Learned counsel for the informant, however, further pointed out that bail application of co-accused Ravi Shankar Yadav has been dismissed by this Court after considering entire facts of the case on 14.5.2025 vide Crl.Misc. Bail Application No. 13224 of 2025 but he could not dispute the fact that he was named in the FIR.

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

12. However, it is a case in which as per prosecution due to the assault made by accused persons including applicant, two persons died and eight persons sustained injuries but it reflects, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation neither informant nor injured witnesses Rajendra Yadav and Indra Kumar Yadav could disclose his name in their statements recorded under section 180 BNSS.

13. However, record further suggests that when the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey i.e. one of the deceased was recorded on 3.11.2024 i.e. after four days then he stated that applicant also involved in the present matter alongwith other accused but from his statement it reflects, initially he only stated that co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav, Dhruv Shanker Yadav, Ratan Singh Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav, Lavkush Yadav, Kuldeep Yadav, Abhilash Yadav, Darasingh Yadav, Vikas Yadav, Chintamin & Vipin Yadav made assault upon him, deceased and others and in the end of his statement he very casually disclosed the name of applicant by stating that applicant also involved alongwith others.

14. Further, however, it also reflects that when the statements of other injured persons were recorded by the investigating officer after the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey then they started making allegation against the applicant but their statements were recorded after more than two weeks and even from their statements, it reflects that only general role has been assigned by them to all the accused including applicant.

15. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav has been dismissed by this Court after considering entire facts of the case but he was named in the FIR and even all the injured witnesses and informant in their statements reiterated the version of the FIR as far as his case is concerned and therefore, it appears, case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 16.12.2024.

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

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

19. Let the applicant-Vijay Kumar Yadav 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 30.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 351(3), 352, 109(1), 115(2), 324(2), 103(1) BNS, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 1.11.2024 against 10 named (non applicant) and some unknown person and according to the FIR on 31.10.2024 at about 20:00 p.m. nominated accused persons alongwith their unknown associates made assault through wooden sticks, iron rod and axe and due to the assault made by them number of persons sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 109 BNS and other offences but after the death of two injured persons namely Pawan and Jitendra Pratap Dubey, case has been converted under section 103(1) BNS.

5. He further submitted that however, it is a case in which as per prosecution two persons died and eight persons sustained injuries but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation neither informant nor two injured Rajendra Prasad Dubey and Indra Kumar Dubey disclosed his name in their statements but when after four days, before his death statement of one of the injured since deceased Jitendra Prasad Dubey was recorded then he although very categorically stated that on 31.10.2024 at 8 pm accused persons made assault but in this portion of his statement, he did not disclose the name of applicant but at the end of his statement, he very casually introduced the applicant by stating that he also involved in the present crime alongwith others and thereafter when the statements of other witnesses were recorded including injured witnesses then they also started making allegation against the applicant alongwith others but the statements of other injured witnesses were recorded after more than two weeks and even from their statements it reflects that they assigned only general role to the applicant and other accused. He further submitted that all these facts clearly suggests that applicant during investigation very casually has been made accused.

6. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which two persons died and as many as 8 persons sustained injuries and even deceased Jitendra Prasad Dubey before his death disclosed the name of the applicant in his statement recorded during investigation and thereafter when the statements of other injured persons were recorded then they also stated that applicant involved in the present crime alongwith others but they could not dispute the fact that from the statement of injured Jitendra Prasad Dubey since deceased, it reflects that initially he did not make any allegation, against the applicant with regard to the incident dated 31.10.2024 but at the end of his statement, he very casually introduced the applicant by stating that applicant also involved in the present crime.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that name of the applicant could not be disclosed in the present matter either in the statement of informant or in the statements of two injured Rajendra Kumar Dubey and Indra Kumar Dubey recorded under section 180 BNSS.

9. They further could not dispute the fact that however, other injured persons after the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey started making allegation against the applicant but their statements were recorded after more than two weeks.

10. Learned counsel for the informant, however, further pointed out that bail application of co-accused Ravi Shankar Yadav has been dismissed by this Court after considering entire facts of the case on 14.5.2025 vide Crl.Misc. Bail Application No. 13224 of 2025 but he could not dispute the fact that he was named in the FIR.

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

12. However, it is a case in which as per prosecution due to the assault made by accused persons including applicant, two persons died and eight persons sustained injuries but it reflects, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation neither informant nor injured witnesses Rajendra Yadav and Indra Kumar Yadav could disclose his name in their statements recorded under section 180 BNSS.

13. However, record further suggests that when the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey i.e. one of the deceased was recorded on 3.11.2024 i.e. after four days then he stated that applicant also involved in the present matter alongwith other accused but from his statement it reflects, initially he only stated that co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav, Dhruv Shanker Yadav, Ratan Singh Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav, Lavkush Yadav, Kuldeep Yadav, Abhilash Yadav, Darasingh Yadav, Vikas Yadav, Chintamin & Vipin Yadav made assault upon him, deceased and others and in the end of his statement he very casually disclosed the name of applicant by stating that applicant also involved alongwith others.

14. Further, however, it also reflects that when the statements of other injured persons were recorded by the investigating officer after the statement of Jitendra Prasad Dubey then they started making allegation against the applicant but their statements were recorded after more than two weeks and even from their statements, it reflects that only general role has been assigned by them to all the accused including applicant.

15. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav has been dismissed by this Court after considering entire facts of the case but he was named in the FIR and even all the injured witnesses and informant in their statements reiterated the version of the FIR as far as his case is concerned and therefore, it appears, case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ravi Shanker Yadav.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 16.12.2024.

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

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

19. Let the applicant-Vijay Kumar Yadav 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 30.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad