High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.01.2025 against unknown person but after two days, informant moved an application on 26.01.2025 and stated that Satyendra and Rahul informed him that applicant by causing injury committed the murder of his father i.e. deceased.

5. He further submitted that after the application dated 26.01.2025 moved by the informant when Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Satyendra and Rahul then they claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased by causing fire-arm injury but from their statements, it reflects they are not the reliable witness and no reliance can be placed on their testimony.

6. He further submitted that even witness Rahul was the real brother of the deceased and uncle of the informant and therefore, if he would have witnessed the incident then he would have definitely disclosed this fact to the informant. He further submitted that even father of the witness Satyendra namely Satveer was the inquest witness, therefore, he also if would have witnessed the incident then name of the applicant would have definitely been taken place in the FIR. He further submitted that these fact suggest that above witnesses were not the eye-witnesses and they have been introduced by the informant after two days.

7. He further submitted that, however, after one month Investigating Officers also recorded the statements of witnesses Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal and they also claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses but no reliance can be placed on their testimony as their statements were recorded quite belatedly i.e. after more than a month.

8. He further submitted that except the above eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account.

9. He further submitted that actually applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases and in majority of the cases police implicated him, therefore, during investigation with the connivance of the police officer, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

10. He further submitted that entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application and out of 11 cases, although, one case relate to the offence of murder but in that case, applicant has already been acquitted. He further submitted that even out of remaining 10 cases, in 4 cases also applicant has been acquitted and in all the other cases, he is on bail.

11. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025.

12. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, from the statements of witnesses Satyendra, Rahul, Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal recorded during investigation, it reflects, they were the eye-witnesses and they stated that applicant, by causing fire-arm injury, committed the murder of the deceased but statements of Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal were recorded after one month and however, statements of Satyendra and Rahul were recorded on 26.01.2025 but from the record, it reflects applicant was not named in the FIR and statements of these eye- witnesses prima facie, do not appear to be convincing.

15. Further, witness Rahul was the real brother of the deceased and uncle of the informan, but in spite of that he did not disclose the fact to the informant that applicant committed the murder of the deceased to the informant. Further, witness Satyendra was along with witness Rahul and he also did not disclose this fact to the informant, therefore, prima facie, even their statements appear to be doubtful.

16. Further, it reflects, except above witnesses, there is no eye- witness account.

17. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and except one case, in all the cases, it reflects, police implicated him and however that case relate to the offence under section 302 IPC but in that case, he has been acquitted. Further, even out of remaining 10 cases, in 4 cases also applicant has been acquitted.

18. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed.

19. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

27.01.2025.

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

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

22. Let the applicant- Ankit 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 22.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.01.2025 against unknown person but after two days, informant moved an application on 26.01.2025 and stated that Satyendra and Rahul informed him that applicant by causing injury committed the murder of his father i.e. deceased.

5. He further submitted that after the application dated 26.01.2025 moved by the informant when Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Satyendra and Rahul then they claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased by causing fire-arm injury but from their statements, it reflects they are not the reliable witness and no reliance can be placed on their testimony.

6. He further submitted that even witness Rahul was the real brother of the deceased and uncle of the informant and therefore, if he would have witnessed the incident then he would have definitely disclosed this fact to the informant. He further submitted that even father of the witness Satyendra namely Satveer was the inquest witness, therefore, he also if would have witnessed the incident then name of the applicant would have definitely been taken place in the FIR. He further submitted that these fact suggest that above witnesses were not the eye-witnesses and they have been introduced by the informant after two days.

7. He further submitted that, however, after one month Investigating Officers also recorded the statements of witnesses Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal and they also claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses but no reliance can be placed on their testimony as their statements were recorded quite belatedly i.e. after more than a month.

8. He further submitted that except the above eye-witnesses, there is no eye-witness account.

9. He further submitted that actually applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases and in majority of the cases police implicated him, therefore, during investigation with the connivance of the police officer, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

10. He further submitted that entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application and out of 11 cases, although, one case relate to the offence of murder but in that case, applicant has already been acquitted. He further submitted that even out of remaining 10 cases, in 4 cases also applicant has been acquitted and in all the other cases, he is on bail.

11. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025.

12. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, from the statements of witnesses Satyendra, Rahul, Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal recorded during investigation, it reflects, they were the eye-witnesses and they stated that applicant, by causing fire-arm injury, committed the murder of the deceased but statements of Sudhir Ujjwal and Arun Ujjwal were recorded after one month and however, statements of Satyendra and Rahul were recorded on 26.01.2025 but from the record, it reflects applicant was not named in the FIR and statements of these eye- witnesses prima facie, do not appear to be convincing.

15. Further, witness Rahul was the real brother of the deceased and uncle of the informan, but in spite of that he did not disclose the fact to the informant that applicant committed the murder of the deceased to the informant. Further, witness Satyendra was along with witness Rahul and he also did not disclose this fact to the informant, therefore, prima facie, even their statements appear to be doubtful.

16. Further, it reflects, except above witnesses, there is no eye- witness account.

17. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of 11 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and except one case, in all the cases, it reflects, police implicated him and however that case relate to the offence under section 302 IPC but in that case, he has been acquitted. Further, even out of remaining 10 cases, in 4 cases also applicant has been acquitted.

18. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed.

19. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

27.01.2025.

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

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

22. Let the applicant- Ankit 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 22.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad