High Court · 2025

Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 333, 351(2), 109, 3(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Sikanderpur, District- Ballia, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that, however, applicants are named in the FIR and it is a case in which six persons sustained injuries and two persons died but they have been made accused along with as many as more than 10 persons on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

5. He further submitted that even from the record, it could not be reflected that applicants were having any concern with the other accused persons, who were having enmity with the deceased side and even from the statements of independent witnesses Jawaharlal Yadav and Vishwakarma Yadav, their complicity appears to be false and baseless.

6. He further submitted that during investigation on the basis of CCTV footage, when Investigating Officer made query even from the injured persons then they did not disclose the name of the applicants after perusing the CCTV footage and details of the CCTV footage has been annexed at page no. 116 of the paper book. He further submitted that therefore, from the statements of the above named independent witnesses and from perusal of the CCTV footage, it reflects applicants did not participate in the alleged incident.

7. He further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since 06.03.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicants are specifically named in the FIR and as per allegation, they also participated in the alleged incident of assault and due to assault made by applicants and other accused persons, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of over implication.

9. They further submitted that, however, from the statements of the independent witnesses, it reflects, they witnessed the other accused persons while they were running from the spot but even from their statements, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the complete incident of assault and at this stage, version of the FIR and statements of the injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside.

10. They further submitted that even on the basis of CCTV footage, it cannot be said that applicants were not involved in the present crime as it is not necessary that in the CCTV footage, entire incident of assault woud have been captured and in the light of the statements of the injured witnesses, it cannot be said that applicants are innocent and, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should not be released on bail.

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

12. As per allegations, due to assault made by applicants and others, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died and applicants were named in the FIR along with other accused persons.

13. Further, however, only general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including applicants in the FIR and in the statements of the injured witnesses but considering the fact that in the alleged incident, two persons died and six persons sustained injuries, it cannot be said that it is a case of over- implication.

14. Further, however, from the statements of independent witnesses namely Jawaharlal Yadav and Vishwakarma Yadav, it reflects they did not witness the applicants and according to them, other accused persons were running from the spot after the incident but admittedly they were not the eyewitnesses of the real incident and according to them, they arrived at the spot after the incident.

15. Further, however, as per learned counsel for the applicants, applicants were having no concern with the concerned dispute and, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for them to participate in the alleged incident but considering the fact that applicants were specifically named in the FIR and injured witnesses also disclosed their name in their statements, merely on this ground, at this stage, entire prosecution case with regard to applicants cannot be thrown out.

16. Further, however, from the record, it reflects, after perusal of the CCTV footage, when query was made by the Investigating Officer from the injured Geeta Devi and Ranjana Devi, then they after perusing the CCTV footage disclosed the name of certain accused persons and they did not disclose the name of the applicants but it appears, when their statements were recorded subsequently by the Investigating Officer during investigation then they also disclosed the name of the applicants and other accused persons and their statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage in the light of alleged CCTV footage.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. 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 :- 26.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 333, 351(2), 109, 3(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Sikanderpur, District- Ballia, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that, however, applicants are named in the FIR and it is a case in which six persons sustained injuries and two persons died but they have been made accused along with as many as more than 10 persons on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

5. He further submitted that even from the record, it could not be reflected that applicants were having any concern with the other accused persons, who were having enmity with the deceased side and even from the statements of independent witnesses Jawaharlal Yadav and Vishwakarma Yadav, their complicity appears to be false and baseless.

6. He further submitted that during investigation on the basis of CCTV footage, when Investigating Officer made query even from the injured persons then they did not disclose the name of the applicants after perusing the CCTV footage and details of the CCTV footage has been annexed at page no. 116 of the paper book. He further submitted that therefore, from the statements of the above named independent witnesses and from perusal of the CCTV footage, it reflects applicants did not participate in the alleged incident.

7. He further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since 06.03.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicants are specifically named in the FIR and as per allegation, they also participated in the alleged incident of assault and due to assault made by applicants and other accused persons, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of over implication.

9. They further submitted that, however, from the statements of the independent witnesses, it reflects, they witnessed the other accused persons while they were running from the spot but even from their statements, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the complete incident of assault and at this stage, version of the FIR and statements of the injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside.

10. They further submitted that even on the basis of CCTV footage, it cannot be said that applicants were not involved in the present crime as it is not necessary that in the CCTV footage, entire incident of assault woud have been captured and in the light of the statements of the injured witnesses, it cannot be said that applicants are innocent and, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should not be released on bail.

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

12. As per allegations, due to assault made by applicants and others, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died and applicants were named in the FIR along with other accused persons.

13. Further, however, only general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including applicants in the FIR and in the statements of the injured witnesses but considering the fact that in the alleged incident, two persons died and six persons sustained injuries, it cannot be said that it is a case of over- implication.

14. Further, however, from the statements of independent witnesses namely Jawaharlal Yadav and Vishwakarma Yadav, it reflects they did not witness the applicants and according to them, other accused persons were running from the spot after the incident but admittedly they were not the eyewitnesses of the real incident and according to them, they arrived at the spot after the incident.

15. Further, however, as per learned counsel for the applicants, applicants were having no concern with the concerned dispute and, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for them to participate in the alleged incident but considering the fact that applicants were specifically named in the FIR and injured witnesses also disclosed their name in their statements, merely on this ground, at this stage, entire prosecution case with regard to applicants cannot be thrown out.

16. Further, however, from the record, it reflects, after perusal of the CCTV footage, when query was made by the Investigating Officer from the injured Geeta Devi and Ranjana Devi, then they after perusing the CCTV footage disclosed the name of certain accused persons and they did not disclose the name of the applicants but it appears, when their statements were recorded subsequently by the Investigating Officer during investigation then they also disclosed the name of the applicants and other accused persons and their statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage in the light of alleged CCTV footage.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. 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 :- 26.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad