High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application at the instance of the applicant Nikhil S/o Ishwar Singh under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 191 (2), 105, 61 (2) & 115 (2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Amroha, vide order dated 08.05.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number due to ulterior motive. The FIR giving rise to the Case Crime No. 126 of 2025 was lodged against 4 named accused and some unknown persons alleging that the son of the informant namely Akshat Bisnoi received a telephonic call from named accused Dharmendra Karigar and Sonu to come at Jyoti Picture Hall, Naipura. The son of the informant reached Naipura with two friends and all consumed cold drinks. One Rinku S/o Kanti Swaroop and two other persons came with scooter and some scuffle took place with the son of the informant and he was pushed and resultantly was hit by a DCM Container bearing Registration No. UP26T9173 resulting in the death of the son of the informant on the spot. The post mortem of the deceased Akshat Bisnoi reveals 5 internal injuries as 1. Contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm on back of head occipital region 2. Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm right side back of head 3. Abraded contusion of size 4 cm. x 3 cm on left side of forehead 2 cm above left eye brow. 4. Abraded contusion of size 15 cm x 10 cm lower abdomen 6 cm. above umbilicus and 5 Crushed injury of size 45 cm. x 40 cm over lower abdomen with both thigh just below from umbilicus. The cause of death has been shown as Hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR . His name has surfaced in the statement of the informant recorded on 24.03.2025 after 8 days of the incident and 4 days after lodging of the FIR. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of the CCTV Footage. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the first informant as also the other witnesses of the Panchayatnama i.e. Ranul, Yuvank, Ravi Raj and Sandeep have not seen the incident and were not present on the place of occurrence. It has also been argued that the applicant is Engineer and employee of QX Recruitment Services Global Group and at present is doing work from home, his wife Kavita Devi is also employee with Lab Tech Health Care India Private Ltd., who had gone to Jaipur on 15.03.2025 and arrived at Jaipur on 18th March, 2025. The applicant had visited Umang Hotel in the night of 16th March, 2025 for dinner and while returning back after dinner the deceased and his two friends confronted him and tried to snatch his mobile phone forcibly resulting in a scuffle and the applicant in the scuffle pushed the deceased and ran away from the spot. The applicant was not aware that the deceased was hit by DCM Container. It has also been argued by the deceased had criminal antecedents and was involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 115 (2), 304, 317 (2) BNS, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha for the offence of snatching the mobile phone and a motorcycle. The deceased was bailed out vide order dated 29.01.2025. Even if the applicant has been identified in the CCTV Footage the role assigned is of pushing away the deceased, there is no motive or intention to kill the deceased rather the deceased was pushed away to save his own life and mobile phone from the three persons including the deceased. No offence under Section 115 BNS can be said to be made out against the applicant and maximum the offence may travel to an offence under Section 122 BNS. Offences under Section 191 and 61 BNS is also not made out against the applicant as the named accused Dharmendra Karigar, Sonu Kashyap, Gajendra and Rinku have been exonerated. It is also submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty if released on bail. Hence, prayer for bail has been made.

5. Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV Footage as the person who pushed the deceased resulting in his death on being crushed by the passing DCM container. The other named accused persons have been exhonerated and the complicity of the applicant in the offence stands established. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the version of the applicant that the deceased who admittedly has a criminal history of offence under Section 115 (2), 304, 317 (2) BNS, attempt to snatch the mobile phone of the applicant resulting in scuffle with the applicant and the applicant pushing the deceased to save himself and his belonging resulting in a road accident cannot be ruled out. The applicant has no criminal history and is confined in jail since 18.04.2025. Considering the materials on record nature of the accusations, possibility of commission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in the opinion of the Court case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the accused-applicant, Nikhil, 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:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. 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.

9. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application at the instance of the applicant Nikhil S/o Ishwar Singh under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 191 (2), 105, 61 (2) & 115 (2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Amroha, vide order dated 08.05.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number due to ulterior motive. The FIR giving rise to the Case Crime No. 126 of 2025 was lodged against 4 named accused and some unknown persons alleging that the son of the informant namely Akshat Bisnoi received a telephonic call from named accused Dharmendra Karigar and Sonu to come at Jyoti Picture Hall, Naipura. The son of the informant reached Naipura with two friends and all consumed cold drinks. One Rinku S/o Kanti Swaroop and two other persons came with scooter and some scuffle took place with the son of the informant and he was pushed and resultantly was hit by a DCM Container bearing Registration No. UP26T9173 resulting in the death of the son of the informant on the spot. The post mortem of the deceased Akshat Bisnoi reveals 5 internal injuries as 1. Contusion of size 6cm x 4 cm on back of head occipital region 2. Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 2 cm right side back of head 3. Abraded contusion of size 4 cm. x 3 cm on left side of forehead 2 cm above left eye brow. 4. Abraded contusion of size 15 cm x 10 cm lower abdomen 6 cm. above umbilicus and 5 Crushed injury of size 45 cm. x 40 cm over lower abdomen with both thigh just below from umbilicus. The cause of death has been shown as Hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR . His name has surfaced in the statement of the informant recorded on 24.03.2025 after 8 days of the incident and 4 days after lodging of the FIR. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of the CCTV Footage. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the first informant as also the other witnesses of the Panchayatnama i.e. Ranul, Yuvank, Ravi Raj and Sandeep have not seen the incident and were not present on the place of occurrence. It has also been argued that the applicant is Engineer and employee of QX Recruitment Services Global Group and at present is doing work from home, his wife Kavita Devi is also employee with Lab Tech Health Care India Private Ltd., who had gone to Jaipur on 15.03.2025 and arrived at Jaipur on 18th March, 2025. The applicant had visited Umang Hotel in the night of 16th March, 2025 for dinner and while returning back after dinner the deceased and his two friends confronted him and tried to snatch his mobile phone forcibly resulting in a scuffle and the applicant in the scuffle pushed the deceased and ran away from the spot. The applicant was not aware that the deceased was hit by DCM Container. It has also been argued by the deceased had criminal antecedents and was involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 115 (2), 304, 317 (2) BNS, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha for the offence of snatching the mobile phone and a motorcycle. The deceased was bailed out vide order dated 29.01.2025. Even if the applicant has been identified in the CCTV Footage the role assigned is of pushing away the deceased, there is no motive or intention to kill the deceased rather the deceased was pushed away to save his own life and mobile phone from the three persons including the deceased. No offence under Section 115 BNS can be said to be made out against the applicant and maximum the offence may travel to an offence under Section 122 BNS. Offences under Section 191 and 61 BNS is also not made out against the applicant as the named accused Dharmendra Karigar, Sonu Kashyap, Gajendra and Rinku have been exonerated. It is also submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty if released on bail. Hence, prayer for bail has been made.

5. Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV Footage as the person who pushed the deceased resulting in his death on being crushed by the passing DCM container. The other named accused persons have been exhonerated and the complicity of the applicant in the offence stands established. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the version of the applicant that the deceased who admittedly has a criminal history of offence under Section 115 (2), 304, 317 (2) BNS, attempt to snatch the mobile phone of the applicant resulting in scuffle with the applicant and the applicant pushing the deceased to save himself and his belonging resulting in a road accident cannot be ruled out. The applicant has no criminal history and is confined in jail since 18.04.2025. Considering the materials on record nature of the accusations, possibility of commission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in the opinion of the Court case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the accused-applicant, Nikhil, 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:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. 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.

9. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad