Uttam Singh v. State of U.P.)

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter although has started and at the time of rejection of the first bail application four prosecution witnesses were examined but as of now only Dr. Rajan Singh has been examined as PW-5 before the trial court who has stated that when he examined the injured Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh on 28.07.2022 at about 03:00 PM he found four injuries on his back and in his opinion the said injuries could have been caused by a hard Kundalaya. It is submitted that as such the prosecution case of the applicant using a kulhari @ axe in the present case is not borne out of the said witnesses. It is submitted that co-accused Gajodhar, Shailendra Singh and Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh have been granted bail by this Court as well as by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 2 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025

18.07.2024, 05.05.2025 and 03.05.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20996 of 2024 (Gajodhar Vs. State of U.P.), 25440 of 2024 (Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and 22241 of 2023 (Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said orders are annexed as annexure 9 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 06.09.2022.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which five witnesses have been examined. Further it is submitted that giving an opinion on the said statements of a witness would not be proper in a bail application since it may have an adverse effect in the trial. It is submitted that the appreciation of the evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Uttam Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.07.2022 by Dileep Singh against the applicant, Gajodhar Singh, Munna Singh and Shailendra Singh with the allegation that Uttam Singh of his village used to leave his animals in the park behind his hotel who used to destroy the plants there. On 28.07.2022 at about 01:30 pm Uttam Singh again left his animals in the park to which he objected and then the accused persons armed with iron rod and danda came there and while abusing him started assaulting him due to which he and his father Bodhi Singh received injuries. On their shouts, people came there and saved them. They while extending threats went back. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. The FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Subsequently Krishna Kumar Singh died on

05.09.2022 at about 05:50 am while being under treatment at Apollomedics Hospital, Lucknow and his postmortem examination was conducted on 05.09.2022. The doctor found six injuries on his body which were old and healed stitched mark, two stitched wounds, two septic wounds and one subdural hematoma and the cause of death was opined as septicemia due to all the antemortem injuries. The first informant Dileep Singh was medically examined on 28.07.2022 and was found to have received two lacerated wounds and one pain of which the doctors opined the injuries to be caused by hard and blunt object 3 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 appearing approximately 2-4 hours old, the injury no.3 was simple in nature and for two lacerated wounds, he was referred to a higher centre along with advise for x-ray of skull. The case was then converted into a case in the present sections.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that common and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant and three other co-accused persons in the FIR. It is submitted that the applicant had no intention to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that Dileep Singh was examined as PW-1 before the trial court and Shubham Singh was examined as PW-2. It is submitted that co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh who is also named in the FIR, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22241 of 2023 (Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh). Further, Gajodhar is also named in the FIR, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20996 of 2024 (Gajodhar Vs. State of U.P.), both the orders have been placed which are collectively annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.09.2022.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR along with three other co-accused persons. It is submitted that Dileep Singh PW-1 has been examined before the trial court who has assigned the role of causing fatal injury by axe on the head of the deceased Krishan Kumar Singh to the applicant. It is submitted that even the said fact has been mentioned in the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in the bail application of Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh and in the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in the bail application of Gajadhar, both the orders have been placed before the Court for the same. The order of bail Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22241 of 2023 reads as under: "List of fresh cases has been revised. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of trial. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on

30.01.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that P.W.-1, the injured witness, has been examined before trial court and he has assigned the role of causing fatal injury by axe on head of deceased to Uttam Singh. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of general allegations. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 06.09.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case 4 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 is not likely to be concluded in near future. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days." 5 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025

8. The order of Gajodhar granting bail passed in the Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20996 of 2024 reads as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged against applicant- accused and co-accused Uttam Singh, Munna Singh and Shailendra Singh, alleging that on 28.07.2022 at

01.30 PM, the accused persons have left their cattles in the park of informant and when the informant objected, all the accused persons, including applicant-accused, abused and assaulted the informant and his father Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh. The FIR was registered under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC but later on said Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh has passed away and thus, section 302 IPC along with other sections, was added during investigation. Learned counsel submitted that in initial medical examination, which was conducted on 28.07.2022, four injuries were shown on the body of deceased and except the injury No.1, other injuries were simple in nature. As per x-ray report, no bony injury was found in the said injury of Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh. In C.T. scan report of Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh, only a hair line fracture of left frontotemporal bone of deceased was shown. It was stated that the injuries sustained by Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh were not of such serious or of such nature so as to cause his death. Informant Dilip Singh has sustained three injuries and the injury no.1 and 2 were referred for x-ray and as per report of the radiologist, no bony abnormality was seen and that in C.T. scan of injured Dilip Singh. During treatment, said Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh has expired on 05.09.2022 in Apollo Hospital, Lucknow. The recovery of iron rod was shown from co-accused Uttam and of stick from co-accused Shailendra Singh. Nothing was recovered from possession of applicant- accused.

4. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2023 and one of the ground for rejection was that bail application of similarly placed co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It was stated that after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, statement of informant/P.W.-1 Dilip Singh has been recorded before the trial Court and in his statement, he has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased with axe to co-accused Uttam Singh. Further, the second bail application of similarly placed co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh has already been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and role of applicant has been shown similar to him. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2022, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted 6 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 that applicant is named in the First Information Report and first bail application of applicant has already been rejected by this Court.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Gajodhar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law."

9. It is submitted that as such the applicant is the main person and the main assailant who has assaulted the deceased. It is further submitted that the trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined as such release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial in the present matter is going in which four witnesses have been examined. The injured witness Dileep Singh who is the first informant also was examined as PW-1 in the trial in which he has assigned the specific role of assault on the applicant by an axe on the head of the deceased. The said injury was a fatal injury. In the bail orders of co-accused, a distinction has been drawn with regards to the applicant who is stated to be the main assailant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

9. At the time of rejection of the first bail application four prosecution witnesses were examined and the said fact finds reference in the said 7 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 order. Now PW-5 Dr. Rajan Singh examined the injured has also been examined. The appreciation of the evidence of the said doctor is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. No fresh and new ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 18, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter although has started and at the time of rejection of the first bail application four prosecution witnesses were examined but as of now only Dr. Rajan Singh has been examined as PW-5 before the trial court who has stated that when he examined the injured Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh on 28.07.2022 at about 03:00 PM he found four injuries on his back and in his opinion the said injuries could have been caused by a hard Kundalaya. It is submitted that as such the prosecution case of the applicant using a kulhari @ axe in the present case is not borne out of the said witnesses. It is submitted that co-accused Gajodhar, Shailendra Singh and Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh have been granted bail by this Court as well as by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 2 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025

18.07.2024, 05.05.2025 and 03.05.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20996 of 2024 (Gajodhar Vs. State of U.P.), 25440 of 2024 (Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and 22241 of 2023 (Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the said orders are annexed as annexure 9 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 06.09.2022.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which five witnesses have been examined. Further it is submitted that giving an opinion on the said statements of a witness would not be proper in a bail application since it may have an adverse effect in the trial. It is submitted that the appreciation of the evidence is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025. The same reads as under: "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Uttam Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.07.2022 by Dileep Singh against the applicant, Gajodhar Singh, Munna Singh and Shailendra Singh with the allegation that Uttam Singh of his village used to leave his animals in the park behind his hotel who used to destroy the plants there. On 28.07.2022 at about 01:30 pm Uttam Singh again left his animals in the park to which he objected and then the accused persons armed with iron rod and danda came there and while abusing him started assaulting him due to which he and his father Bodhi Singh received injuries. On their shouts, people came there and saved them. They while extending threats went back. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. The FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Subsequently Krishna Kumar Singh died on

05.09.2022 at about 05:50 am while being under treatment at Apollomedics Hospital, Lucknow and his postmortem examination was conducted on 05.09.2022. The doctor found six injuries on his body which were old and healed stitched mark, two stitched wounds, two septic wounds and one subdural hematoma and the cause of death was opined as septicemia due to all the antemortem injuries. The first informant Dileep Singh was medically examined on 28.07.2022 and was found to have received two lacerated wounds and one pain of which the doctors opined the injuries to be caused by hard and blunt object 3 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 appearing approximately 2-4 hours old, the injury no.3 was simple in nature and for two lacerated wounds, he was referred to a higher centre along with advise for x-ray of skull. The case was then converted into a case in the present sections.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that common and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant and three other co-accused persons in the FIR. It is submitted that the applicant had no intention to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that Dileep Singh was examined as PW-1 before the trial court and Shubham Singh was examined as PW-2. It is submitted that co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh who is also named in the FIR, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22241 of 2023 (Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh). Further, Gajodhar is also named in the FIR, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20996 of 2024 (Gajodhar Vs. State of U.P.), both the orders have been placed which are collectively annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.09.2022.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR along with three other co-accused persons. It is submitted that Dileep Singh PW-1 has been examined before the trial court who has assigned the role of causing fatal injury by axe on the head of the deceased Krishan Kumar Singh to the applicant. It is submitted that even the said fact has been mentioned in the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in the bail application of Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh and in the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in the bail application of Gajadhar, both the orders have been placed before the Court for the same. The order of bail Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22241 of 2023 reads as under: "List of fresh cases has been revised. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of trial. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on

30.01.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that P.W.-1, the injured witness, has been examined before trial court and he has assigned the role of causing fatal injury by axe on head of deceased to Uttam Singh. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of general allegations. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 06.09.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case 4 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 is not likely to be concluded in near future. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days." 5 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025

8. The order of Gajodhar granting bail passed in the Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20996 of 2024 reads as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 130 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report was lodged against applicant- accused and co-accused Uttam Singh, Munna Singh and Shailendra Singh, alleging that on 28.07.2022 at

01.30 PM, the accused persons have left their cattles in the park of informant and when the informant objected, all the accused persons, including applicant-accused, abused and assaulted the informant and his father Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh. The FIR was registered under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC but later on said Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh has passed away and thus, section 302 IPC along with other sections, was added during investigation. Learned counsel submitted that in initial medical examination, which was conducted on 28.07.2022, four injuries were shown on the body of deceased and except the injury No.1, other injuries were simple in nature. As per x-ray report, no bony injury was found in the said injury of Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh. In C.T. scan report of Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh, only a hair line fracture of left frontotemporal bone of deceased was shown. It was stated that the injuries sustained by Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh were not of such serious or of such nature so as to cause his death. Informant Dilip Singh has sustained three injuries and the injury no.1 and 2 were referred for x-ray and as per report of the radiologist, no bony abnormality was seen and that in C.T. scan of injured Dilip Singh. During treatment, said Bodhi Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh has expired on 05.09.2022 in Apollo Hospital, Lucknow. The recovery of iron rod was shown from co-accused Uttam and of stick from co-accused Shailendra Singh. Nothing was recovered from possession of applicant- accused.

4. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2023 and one of the ground for rejection was that bail application of similarly placed co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It was stated that after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, statement of informant/P.W.-1 Dilip Singh has been recorded before the trial Court and in his statement, he has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased with axe to co-accused Uttam Singh. Further, the second bail application of similarly placed co-accused Munna Singh @ Yogendra Singh has already been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and role of applicant has been shown similar to him. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2022, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted 6 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 that applicant is named in the First Information Report and first bail application of applicant has already been rejected by this Court.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant - Gajodhar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

8. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law."

9. It is submitted that as such the applicant is the main person and the main assailant who has assaulted the deceased. It is further submitted that the trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined as such release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

10. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial in the present matter is going in which four witnesses have been examined. The injured witness Dileep Singh who is the first informant also was examined as PW-1 in the trial in which he has assigned the specific role of assault on the applicant by an axe on the head of the deceased. The said injury was a fatal injury. In the bail orders of co-accused, a distinction has been drawn with regards to the applicant who is stated to be the main assailant. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

9. At the time of rejection of the first bail application four prosecution witnesses were examined and the said fact finds reference in the said 7 BAIL No. 26064 of 2025 order. Now PW-5 Dr. Rajan Singh examined the injured has also been examined. The appreciation of the evidence of the said doctor is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. No fresh and new ground for bail is made out. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 18, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad