State of U.P. vs Party(s)

3. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.816 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 103(1), 109, 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Gola, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The deceased person was driving the motorcycle on which the informant was travelling as a pillion rider and the Scorpio car driven by the applicant and other accused persons is stated to have hit the said motorcycle on

13.12.2024 at about 06:30 p.m., whereby the duo travelling on the motorcycle fell down.

6. It is further alleged that the applicants Tarkeshwar Dubey and 2 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 Parmeshwar Dubey alongwith two other named accused persons and two unknown persons alighted from the said car and assaulted the father-in-law of the informant, causing injuries to him and had also assaulted the informant. The deceased was rushed to hospital who succumbed to the injuries sustained. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence.

8. The FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the FIR is delayed by seven hours from the inquest report and the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings.

9. Subsequently, the prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR has been escalated and the applicants have been shown to be the main perpetrators of the crime.

10. It is true that applicants and the deceased were having prior enmity and there were cross FIRs against each other, but it is true that enmity may be a reason of commissioning of offence, but it may also be a reason for false implication.

11. The postmortem report categorically indicates that no cause of death could be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved. The injuries sustained by the deceased person are not on vital parts of the body and they are on upper and lower limbs of the deceased person, as such, the case does not go beyond causing of grievous hurt.

12. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) SCC 456, whereby the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 & 3 has held as follows:- "2. On appeal learned judges of the High Court after considering the evidence acquitted all others, but convicted the present three appellants Ram Singh, Dan Singh and Rattan Singh and that all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life 3 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 and a fine of Rs 5000 each. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that these three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and therefore, it is necessary to find out the injury inflicted by each one of them on the person of the deceased. Admittedly according to the prosecution's own case Ran Singh and Rattan Singh were carrying lathies which could be described as hard and blunt object. Such injuries on the person of the deceased were either on hands or on feet and at best what could be attributed to them could be injuries resulting in fractures. None of these two appellants could be convicted for causing injuries individually which could make out an offence under Section 302. At best they could only be convicted under Section 325 and maximum sentence under Section 325 is seven years.

3. As regards Dan Singh, he was carrying barchi (spear) and two injuries which have been found on the person of the deceased which are described as incised Injuries 1 and 2. According to the evidence examined at the trial, this appellant has alleged to have inflicted injury by barchi (spear) on the right arm on the upper part. There is no injury on the upper part of the right arm which could be said to have been inflicted by a sharp edged weapon. Even if any other injury could be attributed, it could only be either 1 or 2 and it is clear that none of these injuries are as per medical opinion fatal, which resulted in death of the deceased. Even if Injury 2 is attributed to this appellant, he at best could be convicted under Section 326 or if Injury 1 is attributed to him also, he could be convicted under Section 324 only. In either case, sentence of 5 years could be said to be sufficient."

13. The criminal history of eight cases and five cases assigned to the applicant nos. 1 & 2, respectively, has been explained except a case under the Gangsters Act in which they have yet to apply for bail.

14. The applicants are languishing in jail since 15.12.2024 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are call detail reports regarding conversation between co-accused person and one 4 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 witness, whereby the said co-accused person is stating that he shall take revenge from the deceased person and shall commit the offence in the broad day light in Gorakhpur district only.

16. It is also argued by learned counsel for the informant that subsequent to the instant case an FIR was also instituted by the informant against co- accused person of having threatened the informant to settle the matter. CONCLUSION:

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the injuries sustained by the deceased person and also the opinion given by the doctor in the postmortem report, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Tarkeshwar Dubey and Parmeshwar Dubey, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 4, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.816 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 103(1), 109, 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Gola, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The deceased person was driving the motorcycle on which the informant was travelling as a pillion rider and the Scorpio car driven by the applicant and other accused persons is stated to have hit the said motorcycle on

13.12.2024 at about 06:30 p.m., whereby the duo travelling on the motorcycle fell down.

6. It is further alleged that the applicants Tarkeshwar Dubey and 2 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 Parmeshwar Dubey alongwith two other named accused persons and two unknown persons alighted from the said car and assaulted the father-in-law of the informant, causing injuries to him and had also assaulted the informant. The deceased was rushed to hospital who succumbed to the injuries sustained. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence.

8. The FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the FIR is delayed by seven hours from the inquest report and the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings.

9. Subsequently, the prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR has been escalated and the applicants have been shown to be the main perpetrators of the crime.

10. It is true that applicants and the deceased were having prior enmity and there were cross FIRs against each other, but it is true that enmity may be a reason of commissioning of offence, but it may also be a reason for false implication.

11. The postmortem report categorically indicates that no cause of death could be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved. The injuries sustained by the deceased person are not on vital parts of the body and they are on upper and lower limbs of the deceased person, as such, the case does not go beyond causing of grievous hurt.

12. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) SCC 456, whereby the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 & 3 has held as follows:- "2. On appeal learned judges of the High Court after considering the evidence acquitted all others, but convicted the present three appellants Ram Singh, Dan Singh and Rattan Singh and that all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life 3 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 and a fine of Rs 5000 each. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that these three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and therefore, it is necessary to find out the injury inflicted by each one of them on the person of the deceased. Admittedly according to the prosecution's own case Ran Singh and Rattan Singh were carrying lathies which could be described as hard and blunt object. Such injuries on the person of the deceased were either on hands or on feet and at best what could be attributed to them could be injuries resulting in fractures. None of these two appellants could be convicted for causing injuries individually which could make out an offence under Section 302. At best they could only be convicted under Section 325 and maximum sentence under Section 325 is seven years.

3. As regards Dan Singh, he was carrying barchi (spear) and two injuries which have been found on the person of the deceased which are described as incised Injuries 1 and 2. According to the evidence examined at the trial, this appellant has alleged to have inflicted injury by barchi (spear) on the right arm on the upper part. There is no injury on the upper part of the right arm which could be said to have been inflicted by a sharp edged weapon. Even if any other injury could be attributed, it could only be either 1 or 2 and it is clear that none of these injuries are as per medical opinion fatal, which resulted in death of the deceased. Even if Injury 2 is attributed to this appellant, he at best could be convicted under Section 326 or if Injury 1 is attributed to him also, he could be convicted under Section 324 only. In either case, sentence of 5 years could be said to be sufficient."

13. The criminal history of eight cases and five cases assigned to the applicant nos. 1 & 2, respectively, has been explained except a case under the Gangsters Act in which they have yet to apply for bail.

14. The applicants are languishing in jail since 15.12.2024 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are call detail reports regarding conversation between co-accused person and one 4 BAIL No. 23880 of 2025 witness, whereby the said co-accused person is stating that he shall take revenge from the deceased person and shall commit the offence in the broad day light in Gorakhpur district only.

16. It is also argued by learned counsel for the informant that subsequent to the instant case an FIR was also instituted by the informant against co- accused person of having threatened the informant to settle the matter. CONCLUSION:

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the injuries sustained by the deceased person and also the opinion given by the doctor in the postmortem report, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Tarkeshwar Dubey and Parmeshwar Dubey, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 4, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad