State of U.P v. Party

Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R. C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the applicant Anil son of Bijendra has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2024, under Sections 302, 149, 147, 148 of IPC, Section 3/4/25 and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant in the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated

16.05.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.01.2024. Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the present case was lodged nominating 11 persons including the applicant with the allegation that on 05.01.2024 at about 5:30 PM the brother/deceased had informed the informant that he was going to the field. The informant received information from Mohit Bhati son of Janed Bhati that his brother Vikram Chauhan was being assaulted by the nominated persons and that he has been done to death in the field of Rabindra Bhati near the hut. The informant on reaching the spot took his brother to the Yatharth Hospital where the Doctors declared him dead. 2 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2024 at 17:30 Hrs while the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 05.01.2024 at 20:42 Hrs. even through the police station is stated to be at a distance of 7 Kms. The inquest of deceased was conducted on the same day between 20:00 Hrs and 21:30 Hrs. The deceased was brought by ambulance Driver namely Anuj Kumar, Yatharth Hospital Greater Noida. It is also submitted that the informant was an inquest witness. The inquest does not implicate the applicant or any of the accused persons. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 06.01.2024 at 1:45 PM and 15 stab wounds and one incised wound has been reported upon the body of the deceased and cause of death shown is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries (stab wound). Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the court to the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to submit that as per the version of the informant the deceased was not dead when the informant reached the place of the incident and death occurred on account of the delay in taking the deceased for treatment. It has further been argued that the first informant is not an eye witness of the alleged incident. The two eye witness Lakshit and Satveer set up by the prosecution have also not seen the incident and have merely stated that they saw the applicant and 3-4 persons fleeing from the field. It has further been argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance is not complete. The recovery of one blood stained knife and one country made pistol from the possession of the applicant is a planted one. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex court rendered in the case of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 (3) SCC 481 and in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman (Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017) decided on 19th June, 2025 in which it has been held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. It is next argued by Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant that the informant being an inquest witness had not named the applicant. The informant, however, in his 2nd statement nominated the applicant, Banta alias Ban Banti son of Bijendra, Sulla alias Sunil son of Bijendra and Bijendra son of Chanda and certain other accused too have assaulted the deceased. The 2nd statement of the alleged eye witnesses Lakshit son of Devendra Chauhan also nominates the applicant along with other co-accused 3 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 persons to have assaulted the deceased. The informant in his testimony recorded as PW1 has reiterated his version recorded in his 2nd statement and assigned the role of inflicting knife injuries to the applicant and Sunil alias Sulla, Banti alias Banta, Bijendra have been assigned role of catching hold while Jenendra is stated to be standing near his hut. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out material contradictions in the deposition of the informant as PW1. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the first informant is not consistent in his version of the incident inasmuch as there are material contradiction in the version of the FIR, Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 2nd statement and testimony recorded as PW1. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. N. John Vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal No. .... of 2025 (arising out of SLP Criminal) No. 2184 of 2024) decided on 02.01.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 4 he submits that the informant while lodging the FIR had withheld vital facts and had not disclosed the same. If such vital and crucial fact about the applicant causing knife injuries to the deceased no specific role was assigned against the applicant and if such vital and crucial fact is missing from the FIR of which the informant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of the said fact would certainly came within the purview of an afterthought and an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the first informant and prosecution case as a whole. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that 6 (six) co-accused persons including the applicant have been charge sheeted. The co-accused Banta alias Bante, Bijendra, Sarjeet, Jendra alias Janendra and Sulla alias Sunil have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The co-accused Amit, Raj Kumar, Mohit Bhati, Ronak Bhati, Kanhaiya and Jete have been exonerated. The applicant has been summoned to face trial vide order dated 29.04.2024. The trial is proceeding and at present the PW5 is being examined. There are a total of 29 witnesses and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 08.01.2024 and has been in jail for more than one year and 9 months. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence prayer for bail has been made. 4 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 Per contra, learned AGA as also Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the informant have opposed the bail plea by submitting that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material against the applicant to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre- trial stage and the applicant does not deserve the indulgence of the court. The bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima- facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large 5 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 would intimidate the witness. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Anil, 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. 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 17,2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R. C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the applicant Anil son of Bijendra has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2024, under Sections 302, 149, 147, 148 of IPC, Section 3/4/25 and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant in the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated

16.05.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.01.2024. Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the present case was lodged nominating 11 persons including the applicant with the allegation that on 05.01.2024 at about 5:30 PM the brother/deceased had informed the informant that he was going to the field. The informant received information from Mohit Bhati son of Janed Bhati that his brother Vikram Chauhan was being assaulted by the nominated persons and that he has been done to death in the field of Rabindra Bhati near the hut. The informant on reaching the spot took his brother to the Yatharth Hospital where the Doctors declared him dead. 2 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2024 at 17:30 Hrs while the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 05.01.2024 at 20:42 Hrs. even through the police station is stated to be at a distance of 7 Kms. The inquest of deceased was conducted on the same day between 20:00 Hrs and 21:30 Hrs. The deceased was brought by ambulance Driver namely Anuj Kumar, Yatharth Hospital Greater Noida. It is also submitted that the informant was an inquest witness. The inquest does not implicate the applicant or any of the accused persons. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 06.01.2024 at 1:45 PM and 15 stab wounds and one incised wound has been reported upon the body of the deceased and cause of death shown is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries (stab wound). Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the court to the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to submit that as per the version of the informant the deceased was not dead when the informant reached the place of the incident and death occurred on account of the delay in taking the deceased for treatment. It has further been argued that the first informant is not an eye witness of the alleged incident. The two eye witness Lakshit and Satveer set up by the prosecution have also not seen the incident and have merely stated that they saw the applicant and 3-4 persons fleeing from the field. It has further been argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance is not complete. The recovery of one blood stained knife and one country made pistol from the possession of the applicant is a planted one. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex court rendered in the case of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 (3) SCC 481 and in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman (Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2017) decided on 19th June, 2025 in which it has been held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. It is next argued by Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant that the informant being an inquest witness had not named the applicant. The informant, however, in his 2nd statement nominated the applicant, Banta alias Ban Banti son of Bijendra, Sulla alias Sunil son of Bijendra and Bijendra son of Chanda and certain other accused too have assaulted the deceased. The 2nd statement of the alleged eye witnesses Lakshit son of Devendra Chauhan also nominates the applicant along with other co-accused 3 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 persons to have assaulted the deceased. The informant in his testimony recorded as PW1 has reiterated his version recorded in his 2nd statement and assigned the role of inflicting knife injuries to the applicant and Sunil alias Sulla, Banti alias Banta, Bijendra have been assigned role of catching hold while Jenendra is stated to be standing near his hut. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out material contradictions in the deposition of the informant as PW1. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the first informant is not consistent in his version of the incident inasmuch as there are material contradiction in the version of the FIR, Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 2nd statement and testimony recorded as PW1. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. N. John Vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal No. .... of 2025 (arising out of SLP Criminal) No. 2184 of 2024) decided on 02.01.2025 reported in 2025 INSC 4 he submits that the informant while lodging the FIR had withheld vital facts and had not disclosed the same. If such vital and crucial fact about the applicant causing knife injuries to the deceased no specific role was assigned against the applicant and if such vital and crucial fact is missing from the FIR of which the informant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of the said fact would certainly came within the purview of an afterthought and an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the first informant and prosecution case as a whole. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that 6 (six) co-accused persons including the applicant have been charge sheeted. The co-accused Banta alias Bante, Bijendra, Sarjeet, Jendra alias Janendra and Sulla alias Sunil have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The co-accused Amit, Raj Kumar, Mohit Bhati, Ronak Bhati, Kanhaiya and Jete have been exonerated. The applicant has been summoned to face trial vide order dated 29.04.2024. The trial is proceeding and at present the PW5 is being examined. There are a total of 29 witnesses and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 08.01.2024 and has been in jail for more than one year and 9 months. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence prayer for bail has been made. 4 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 Per contra, learned AGA as also Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the informant have opposed the bail plea by submitting that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material against the applicant to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre- trial stage and the applicant does not deserve the indulgence of the court. The bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima- facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large 5 BAIL No. 24297 of 2025 would intimidate the witness. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Anil, 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. 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 17,2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad