High Court · 2025

1. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi, Advocate apprised the Court that he has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list, however, he submits, he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 7.2.2025 against five named accused (non applicant) and some unknown person and according to the FIR on 6.2.2025 at about 7:30 p.m. due to the assault made by named accused and their own associates one Dinesh died and Tarkeshwar sustained serious injuries.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however from the FIR it reflects in the alleged incident one person died and one person sustained injuries but subsequently injured Tarkeshwar also died and it was revealed that three others also sustained injuries and therefore, it is a case of double murder and there are three injured witnesses.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR but during investigation when on 13.2.2025 statement of Harendra Gupta, one of the alleged eye witness was recorded then he very casually disclosed the name of the applicant alongwith others.

8. He further submitted that surprisingly when earlier statement of the informant and injured witnesses were recorded then they did not disclose the name of the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that during investigation through the statement of alleged eye witness Harendra Gupta applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that however, when subsequently statements of injured witnesses were recorded then they also disclosed the name of the applicant but in the light of their first statements, their second statements appear to be unconvincing and doubtful.

10. He further submitted that if applicant would have participated in the incident then his name would have definitely been disclosed in the FIR and informant and injured witnesses would have definitely disclosed his name in their first statements.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.2.2025.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for and submitted that it is a case of double murder and there are three injured persons too and injured persons in their statements categorically disclosed the name of the applicant alongwith other accused but they could not dispute the fact that neither applicant was named in the FIR nor informant and injured witnesses in their first statements disclosed the name of the applicant.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that first time, name of the applicant was surfaced in the present matter through the statement of one eye witness Harendra Gupta which was recorded on 13.2.2025.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

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

16. However, it is a case in which two persons lost their life and three persons sustained injuries but applicant was not named in the FIR and it appears when statement of one eye witness Harendra Gupta was recorded on 13.2.2025 then applicant was made accused in the present matter but it reflects before recording his statement when statements of the informant and injured witnesses were recorded then in their first statements, they did not even disclose the name of applicant.

17. Further, however, record suggests that when their second statements were recorded then they also started making allegation against the applicant but considering their first statements, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that their second statements are not reliable cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.2.2025.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Anil 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 16.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi, Advocate apprised the Court that he has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court, therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list, however, he submits, he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 7.2.2025 against five named accused (non applicant) and some unknown person and according to the FIR on 6.2.2025 at about 7:30 p.m. due to the assault made by named accused and their own associates one Dinesh died and Tarkeshwar sustained serious injuries.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however from the FIR it reflects in the alleged incident one person died and one person sustained injuries but subsequently injured Tarkeshwar also died and it was revealed that three others also sustained injuries and therefore, it is a case of double murder and there are three injured witnesses.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR but during investigation when on 13.2.2025 statement of Harendra Gupta, one of the alleged eye witness was recorded then he very casually disclosed the name of the applicant alongwith others.

8. He further submitted that surprisingly when earlier statement of the informant and injured witnesses were recorded then they did not disclose the name of the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that during investigation through the statement of alleged eye witness Harendra Gupta applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submitted that however, when subsequently statements of injured witnesses were recorded then they also disclosed the name of the applicant but in the light of their first statements, their second statements appear to be unconvincing and doubtful.

10. He further submitted that if applicant would have participated in the incident then his name would have definitely been disclosed in the FIR and informant and injured witnesses would have definitely disclosed his name in their first statements.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.2.2025.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for and submitted that it is a case of double murder and there are three injured persons too and injured persons in their statements categorically disclosed the name of the applicant alongwith other accused but they could not dispute the fact that neither applicant was named in the FIR nor informant and injured witnesses in their first statements disclosed the name of the applicant.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that first time, name of the applicant was surfaced in the present matter through the statement of one eye witness Harendra Gupta which was recorded on 13.2.2025.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

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

16. However, it is a case in which two persons lost their life and three persons sustained injuries but applicant was not named in the FIR and it appears when statement of one eye witness Harendra Gupta was recorded on 13.2.2025 then applicant was made accused in the present matter but it reflects before recording his statement when statements of the informant and injured witnesses were recorded then in their first statements, they did not even disclose the name of applicant.

17. Further, however, record suggests that when their second statements were recorded then they also started making allegation against the applicant but considering their first statements, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that their second statements are not reliable cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.2.2025.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Anil 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 :- 16.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad