State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2025, learned AGA for the State Respondent has brought on record the detailed report of the CCTV Footage (in a sealed cover) by way of compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shashank Singh, learned AGA for the State- Respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant 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 applicant submits that the applicant is 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 submits that even from the record, it could not be reflected that the applicant was having any concern with the other accused persons, who were having enmity with the deceased side and even from the statements of independent witnesses, his complicity appears to be false and baseless. 2 BAIL No. 17403 of 2025

6. He further submits 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 applicant after perusing the CCTV footage. He further submits that from the statements of the independent witnesses and from perusal of the CCTV footage, it reflects that the applicant did not participate in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Smt. Suman, Lalsa Devi and Nandlal Yadav & Piyush Yadav have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.06.2025, 09.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 16163 of 2025,14746 of 2025 and 16645 of 2025 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since 08.02.2025.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and as per allegation, he also participated in the alleged incident of assault and due to assault made by applicant 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. They further submitted that 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. They further submitted that even on the basis of CCTV footage, it cannot be said that applicant was not involved in the present crime as it is not necessary that in the CCTV footage, entire incident of assault would have been captured and in the light of the statements of the injured witnesses, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent and, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant should not be released on bail.

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

9. As per allegations, due to assault made by applicant and others, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died and the applicant was named in the FIR along with other accused persons. Further, only general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant in the FIR. Further, one of the independent witness namely Vinay Kumar Verma, 3 BAIL No. 17403 of 2025 in his statement has stated that meetings were organized by the family members of Ramjeet Yadav at the door of Prabhu Yadav, therefore, the applicant was implicated in the present case.

10. Further, from the statements of independent witnesses, it reflects that they did not witness the applicant 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.

11. Further, 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 but they did not disclose the name of the applicant, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the accused-applicant, Prabhu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. b. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. c. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. d. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

13. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 9, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2025, learned AGA for the State Respondent has brought on record the detailed report of the CCTV Footage (in a sealed cover) by way of compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shashank Singh, learned AGA for the State- Respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant 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 applicant submits that the applicant is 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 submits that even from the record, it could not be reflected that the applicant was having any concern with the other accused persons, who were having enmity with the deceased side and even from the statements of independent witnesses, his complicity appears to be false and baseless. 2 BAIL No. 17403 of 2025

6. He further submits 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 applicant after perusing the CCTV footage. He further submits that from the statements of the independent witnesses and from perusal of the CCTV footage, it reflects that the applicant did not participate in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Smt. Suman, Lalsa Devi and Nandlal Yadav & Piyush Yadav have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.06.2025, 09.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 16163 of 2025,14746 of 2025 and 16645 of 2025 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since 08.02.2025.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and as per allegation, he also participated in the alleged incident of assault and due to assault made by applicant 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. They further submitted that 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. They further submitted that even on the basis of CCTV footage, it cannot be said that applicant was not involved in the present crime as it is not necessary that in the CCTV footage, entire incident of assault would have been captured and in the light of the statements of the injured witnesses, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent and, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant should not be released on bail.

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

9. As per allegations, due to assault made by applicant and others, six persons sustained injuries and two persons died and the applicant was named in the FIR along with other accused persons. Further, only general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant in the FIR. Further, one of the independent witness namely Vinay Kumar Verma, 3 BAIL No. 17403 of 2025 in his statement has stated that meetings were organized by the family members of Ramjeet Yadav at the door of Prabhu Yadav, therefore, the applicant was implicated in the present case.

10. Further, from the statements of independent witnesses, it reflects that they did not witness the applicant 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.

11. Further, 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 but they did not disclose the name of the applicant, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the accused-applicant, Prabhu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. b. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. c. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. d. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

13. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 9, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad