State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of the applicant Manvendra Singh @ Gaya Singh has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 352, 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 22.11.2024 and the applicant is stated to be incarcerated jail since 10.07.2024.

3. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motive. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number in question has been lodged nominating 6 named persons and 4 to 5 unknown persons with the allegation that named and unknown persons arrived at the house of the first informant with prior planning and started assaulting the sons of the first informant namely Sonu, Rinku and Rahul, who were sitting outside the house owing to power cut. The accused persons were armed with sharp edged weapons i.e. Chappar and also lathi danda. The accused 2 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025 persons also assaulted the daughters of the first informant. The FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 19 hours without there being any explanation for the delay. The applicant was not named in the FIR. It is further argued that the applicant has also not been nominated in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the statement of the injured witnesses Rahul Rawat and Neha. In the scuffle which took place the son of the first informant namely Sonu succumbed to the injuries sustained. The post mortem of the deceased conducted on 29.05.2024 at 12:40 hours records 5 ante mortem injuries and cause of death reported was coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. In the statement of the injured witnesses Rahul and Rinku recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. omnibus allegations have been raised against the nominated and unknown persons.

4. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime is sought to be established from the CCTV Footage obtained by the investigating officer from the premises of the co-accused Kamlesh Paswan. The first informant on the strength of the said CCTV Footage in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has nominated the applicant. It is argued that the first informant has deliberately stated that the applicant was visible in the CCTV Footage committing assault upon the deceased. The investigating officer has recorded facts which are contrary to what actually is discernible from the CCTV Footage. It is also submitted that averments controverting the CCTV Footage on the aforesaid ground have been made in paras 40-44 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application which have been evasively controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents and the first informant and an inference is liable to be drawn by this Court in favour of the applicant. Bail is accordingly prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State as also Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant has rightly been nominated by the first informant in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for causing the death of the deceased. The applicant has been duly identified in the CCTV Footage. Charge sheet against the applicant has been filed on 3 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025

19.08.2024 and cognizance has also been taken. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application warrants outright rejection.

6. I, have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

7. Having gone through the respective stands regarding the CCTV Footage collected from the CCTV Camera installed at the residence of the co-accused Kamlesh Paswan this Court vide its order dated 03.09.2025 had required the concerned Investigating Officer of the present case to appear before the Court along with the CCTV Footage of the alleged incident for perusal of this Court. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Investigating Officer has appeared before this Court on 11.09.2025 and the CCTV Footage captured on pen drive was viewed in the presence of learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant and the respective assisting counsels.

8. Perusal of the relevant extract of the case diary depicting the detail of the CCTV Footage as recorded by the Investigating Officer it is clear that the identity of the persons seen in the CCTV Footage is not disputed. A perusal of the CCTV Footage recorded on pen drive and played before this Court in the presence of the counsel for the parties and their assisting counsel prima facie reveals the complicity of the applicant who is seen striking the deceased Sonu with a cricket bat and the deceased Sonu falling on the ground.

9. In the post mortem report of the deceased as many as 5 ante mortem injuries have been reported. Injury No. 1 reported is Contused swelling 15cm x 6cm present on right side of skull, 7cm above lateral part of right eyebrow, 5cm above right ear, on D/S Hematoma present under the skin and muscles underlying right temporo parietal bone fracture. The second injury prima facie can be caused by Bat (weapon) assigned to the applicant. The cause of death reported is coma due to ante mortem head injury.

10. In view of the above, there is no occasion to doubt the analysis of the CCTV Footage collected by the Investigating Officer. 4 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025

11. No ground to release the applicant on bail is made out-rejected.

12. The CCTV Footage recorded in pen drive produced by the learned AGA in compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.09.2025 is returned in the custody of learned AGA. September 11, 2025 v.k.updh. (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of the applicant Manvendra Singh @ Gaya Singh has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 352, 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 22.11.2024 and the applicant is stated to be incarcerated jail since 10.07.2024.

3. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motive. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number in question has been lodged nominating 6 named persons and 4 to 5 unknown persons with the allegation that named and unknown persons arrived at the house of the first informant with prior planning and started assaulting the sons of the first informant namely Sonu, Rinku and Rahul, who were sitting outside the house owing to power cut. The accused persons were armed with sharp edged weapons i.e. Chappar and also lathi danda. The accused 2 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025 persons also assaulted the daughters of the first informant. The FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 19 hours without there being any explanation for the delay. The applicant was not named in the FIR. It is further argued that the applicant has also not been nominated in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the statement of the injured witnesses Rahul Rawat and Neha. In the scuffle which took place the son of the first informant namely Sonu succumbed to the injuries sustained. The post mortem of the deceased conducted on 29.05.2024 at 12:40 hours records 5 ante mortem injuries and cause of death reported was coma as a result of ante mortem head injury. In the statement of the injured witnesses Rahul and Rinku recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. omnibus allegations have been raised against the nominated and unknown persons.

4. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime is sought to be established from the CCTV Footage obtained by the investigating officer from the premises of the co-accused Kamlesh Paswan. The first informant on the strength of the said CCTV Footage in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has nominated the applicant. It is argued that the first informant has deliberately stated that the applicant was visible in the CCTV Footage committing assault upon the deceased. The investigating officer has recorded facts which are contrary to what actually is discernible from the CCTV Footage. It is also submitted that averments controverting the CCTV Footage on the aforesaid ground have been made in paras 40-44 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application which have been evasively controverted in the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents and the first informant and an inference is liable to be drawn by this Court in favour of the applicant. Bail is accordingly prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State as also Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant has rightly been nominated by the first informant in her second statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for causing the death of the deceased. The applicant has been duly identified in the CCTV Footage. Charge sheet against the applicant has been filed on 3 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025

19.08.2024 and cognizance has also been taken. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application warrants outright rejection.

6. I, have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

7. Having gone through the respective stands regarding the CCTV Footage collected from the CCTV Camera installed at the residence of the co-accused Kamlesh Paswan this Court vide its order dated 03.09.2025 had required the concerned Investigating Officer of the present case to appear before the Court along with the CCTV Footage of the alleged incident for perusal of this Court. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Investigating Officer has appeared before this Court on 11.09.2025 and the CCTV Footage captured on pen drive was viewed in the presence of learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant and the respective assisting counsels.

8. Perusal of the relevant extract of the case diary depicting the detail of the CCTV Footage as recorded by the Investigating Officer it is clear that the identity of the persons seen in the CCTV Footage is not disputed. A perusal of the CCTV Footage recorded on pen drive and played before this Court in the presence of the counsel for the parties and their assisting counsel prima facie reveals the complicity of the applicant who is seen striking the deceased Sonu with a cricket bat and the deceased Sonu falling on the ground.

9. In the post mortem report of the deceased as many as 5 ante mortem injuries have been reported. Injury No. 1 reported is Contused swelling 15cm x 6cm present on right side of skull, 7cm above lateral part of right eyebrow, 5cm above right ear, on D/S Hematoma present under the skin and muscles underlying right temporo parietal bone fracture. The second injury prima facie can be caused by Bat (weapon) assigned to the applicant. The cause of death reported is coma due to ante mortem head injury.

10. In view of the above, there is no occasion to doubt the analysis of the CCTV Footage collected by the Investigating Officer. 4 BAIL No. 15550 of 2025

11. No ground to release the applicant on bail is made out-rejected.

12. The CCTV Footage recorded in pen drive produced by the learned AGA in compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.09.2025 is returned in the custody of learned AGA. September 11, 2025 v.k.updh. (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad