High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.09.2024 against applicant and seven others and some unknown persons and according to FIR on 05.09.2024 brothers of the informant namely Irfan and Iftkhar had gone to attend a marriage function and when they were returning back then on the way, applicant and others made assault upon them through knife, axe and iron rods and due to assault made by them both sustained injuries and when after receiving information, brother-in-law of the informant namely Khairuddin arrived at a spot then found that they were lying in injured condition and when he has taken them to the hospital then doctor declared Irfan as dead.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but informant is not the eyewitness.

5. He further submitted that as per prosecution, in the incident, Iftkhar also sustained injury, therefore, he was one of the injured witnesses and however, from his statement, which was recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., it appears, firstly, applicant and co- accused Nawaz, Nafees and Waris caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Seraj inflicted knife injury to him and subsequently, applicant also caused injury to the deceased through knife and similar statement was also given by another witness Khairuddin but their statements do not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submitted that even statement of injured Iftkhar was recorded on 16.10.2024 i.e. after almost one and half month and statement of Khairuddin was recorded on 03.10.2024 i.e. after almost a month and this fact clearly suggests actually they were not present at spot.

7. He further submitted that from the medical report of injured Iftkhar, it reflects he sustained only minor injuries.

8. He further submitted that number of other witnesses also claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and their statements, which were recorded during investigation, have been annexed along with the instant bail application but from their statements, it reflects that they assigned only role of exhortation to the applicant and according to them, co-accused Seraj was the principal accused, who inflicted knife injury to the deceased.

9. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is, however, having criminal history of one another case but that case has been explained in the instant bail application and in that case, applicant has already been acquitted and in the present matter, he is in jail since 09.03.2025.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statements of witnesses Iftkhar and Khairuddin, applicant also inflicted knife injury to the deceased along with co-accused Seraj but could not dispute the fact that statements of both these witnesses were recorded quite belatedly.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that however, injured Iftkhar claimed himself to be eye-witness but admittedly he sustained minor injury.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that as per statements of other witnesses, applicant only made exhortation and role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned by these witnesses only to co-accused Seraj

13. However, they further submitted that incident is said to have taken place on 06.09.2024 and applicant was arrested on

09.03.2025, therefore, prima facie, he appears to be an absconder.

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

15. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but admittedly, informant of the case is not the eyewitness and from the FIR, it reflects, Iftkhar is one of the injured witnesses and Khairuddin was also eye-witness and however, from the statements of these witnesses, it reflects they assigned role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant along with co- accused Seraj but statements of these witnesses were recorded quite belatedly.

16. Record suggests, statement of Iftkhar was recorded on

16.10.2024 i.e after one and half months and however, he is one of the injured witnesses but he did not sustain any serious injury and from his medical report, it reflects, he sustained simple injury. Further, statement of Khairuddin was recorded on 03.10.2024 i.e. after 27 days and no plausible explanation in this regard has been given by the Investigating Officer, why he recorded the statements of these witnesses quite belatedly. Considering this fact and injury report of the injured Iftkhar, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually they were not present at the spot, cannot be completely ruled out.

17. Further, during investigation, investigating officers recorded the statements of some other witnesses, who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and they however, also disclosed the name of the applicant but according to them, applicant only made exhortation and role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned by them to the applicant and according to them, co-accused Seraj was the person, who caused knife injury to the deceased.

18. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of a case under Section 308 IPC but in that case, he has already been acquitted.

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

09.03.2025.

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- Harish Khan 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 :- 8.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.09.2024 against applicant and seven others and some unknown persons and according to FIR on 05.09.2024 brothers of the informant namely Irfan and Iftkhar had gone to attend a marriage function and when they were returning back then on the way, applicant and others made assault upon them through knife, axe and iron rods and due to assault made by them both sustained injuries and when after receiving information, brother-in-law of the informant namely Khairuddin arrived at a spot then found that they were lying in injured condition and when he has taken them to the hospital then doctor declared Irfan as dead.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but informant is not the eyewitness.

5. He further submitted that as per prosecution, in the incident, Iftkhar also sustained injury, therefore, he was one of the injured witnesses and however, from his statement, which was recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., it appears, firstly, applicant and co- accused Nawaz, Nafees and Waris caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Seraj inflicted knife injury to him and subsequently, applicant also caused injury to the deceased through knife and similar statement was also given by another witness Khairuddin but their statements do not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submitted that even statement of injured Iftkhar was recorded on 16.10.2024 i.e. after almost one and half month and statement of Khairuddin was recorded on 03.10.2024 i.e. after almost a month and this fact clearly suggests actually they were not present at spot.

7. He further submitted that from the medical report of injured Iftkhar, it reflects he sustained only minor injuries.

8. He further submitted that number of other witnesses also claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and their statements, which were recorded during investigation, have been annexed along with the instant bail application but from their statements, it reflects that they assigned only role of exhortation to the applicant and according to them, co-accused Seraj was the principal accused, who inflicted knife injury to the deceased.

9. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is, however, having criminal history of one another case but that case has been explained in the instant bail application and in that case, applicant has already been acquitted and in the present matter, he is in jail since 09.03.2025.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statements of witnesses Iftkhar and Khairuddin, applicant also inflicted knife injury to the deceased along with co-accused Seraj but could not dispute the fact that statements of both these witnesses were recorded quite belatedly.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that however, injured Iftkhar claimed himself to be eye-witness but admittedly he sustained minor injury.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that as per statements of other witnesses, applicant only made exhortation and role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned by these witnesses only to co-accused Seraj

13. However, they further submitted that incident is said to have taken place on 06.09.2024 and applicant was arrested on

09.03.2025, therefore, prima facie, he appears to be an absconder.

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

15. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but admittedly, informant of the case is not the eyewitness and from the FIR, it reflects, Iftkhar is one of the injured witnesses and Khairuddin was also eye-witness and however, from the statements of these witnesses, it reflects they assigned role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant along with co- accused Seraj but statements of these witnesses were recorded quite belatedly.

16. Record suggests, statement of Iftkhar was recorded on

16.10.2024 i.e after one and half months and however, he is one of the injured witnesses but he did not sustain any serious injury and from his medical report, it reflects, he sustained simple injury. Further, statement of Khairuddin was recorded on 03.10.2024 i.e. after 27 days and no plausible explanation in this regard has been given by the Investigating Officer, why he recorded the statements of these witnesses quite belatedly. Considering this fact and injury report of the injured Iftkhar, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually they were not present at the spot, cannot be completely ruled out.

17. Further, during investigation, investigating officers recorded the statements of some other witnesses, who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and they however, also disclosed the name of the applicant but according to them, applicant only made exhortation and role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned by them to the applicant and according to them, co-accused Seraj was the person, who caused knife injury to the deceased.

18. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of a case under Section 308 IPC but in that case, he has already been acquitted.

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

09.03.2025.

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- Harish Khan 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 :- 8.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad