High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicants alongwith two other co-accused persons, namely, Suman and Uma Devi, are stated to have hurled abuses at the informant when she was sitting outside her house on 26.04.2025 at about 6:00 a.m. Subsequently, after her asking the accused persons to refrain from doing so, they started assaulting her and when her husband Shankar Lal and son Ravikaran came there and tried to intervene, they are stated to have assaulted them with stone, brick, lathi and danda, thereby causing injuries to the informant, her husband and son, three persons in all. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. It is true that one of the three injured persons Shankar Lal succumbed to the said injury sustained on 10.05.2025, as such, the case was transformed to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are general allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

8. There are discrepancies in the injury report and the medical examination of the injured persons including the deceased. The memo regarding the medical examination of Shankar Gupta, filed as annexure no.3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application, indicates that it was prepared on 25.04.2025 and the said date has been mentioned at two places on the said memo. No case crime number is mentioned in it. It is referred as 'Nil/2025' and the examination of the said injured person has been conducted on 26.04.2025 at 11.26 a.m. There are two injuries sustained by the injured person and both the injuries have been found to be simple, caused by hard and blunt object and duration was less than twelve hours.

9. The memo for medical examination of another injured Ravikaran Gupta was also prepared on 25.04.2025. The said date has been mentioned at two places in it. No case crime number is mentioned in it. It is referred as 'Nil/2025'. The injuries sustained by the said injured persons were four in all and in all those four injuries, injury nos.1, 2 and 3 were found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object and the duration was less than twenty four hours. The said medical examination was conducted on 25.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. The said time and date is pertinent to be mentioned as it was one day before the institution of FIR and occurrence of the instant case. The injury no.4 in the said injury report indicates that it was caused by hard and blunt object and the duration was less than twelve hours.

10. The same is the case of third injured person informant- Smt. Kaushalya whose medical examination does not mention the date at the top of it in the proper column, rather the date is mentioned as 25.04.2024 beneath the signatures of the S.H.O. concerned and in the said memo also, the case crime number is not mentioned. It is referred as 'Nil/2025'.

11. Four injuries have been sustained by Smt. Kaushalya Devi whose medical examination was taken up on 26.04.2025 at 12:00 p.m. and three of those injuries were found simple in nature, but their duration was less than twenty four hours and the duration of injury no.4 was less tan twelve hours.

12. The said injuries and the injury report sustained by the injured persons do not match with the timing mentioned in the FIR. Even the medical examination of the son of the informant Ravikaran Gupta is stated to have been undertaken on 25.04.2024 and the duration was less than twenty four hours, which means that the occurrence is of 24.04.2025.

13. The said interpolation and the discrepancy regarding date and time of the medical examination and the duration indicates foul play. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. The deceased did not gain consciousness, as such, his dying declaration could not be recorded.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 13.05.2025 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/INFORMANT:

15. The applicants are named in the FIR and they have committed the said offence. One of the injured persons had succumbed to the injury sustained.

16. The discrepancy, if any, may not be attributed to the informant, as such, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 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 said discrepancies in the injury reports and the fact that even one of the injured persons has been examined one day prior to the incident and even the year of the incident has been overwritten, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Awdhesh and Kamlesh Gupta, who is 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicants alongwith two other co-accused persons, namely, Suman and Uma Devi, are stated to have hurled abuses at the informant when she was sitting outside her house on 26.04.2025 at about 6:00 a.m. Subsequently, after her asking the accused persons to refrain from doing so, they started assaulting her and when her husband Shankar Lal and son Ravikaran came there and tried to intervene, they are stated to have assaulted them with stone, brick, lathi and danda, thereby causing injuries to the informant, her husband and son, three persons in all. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

6. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. It is true that one of the three injured persons Shankar Lal succumbed to the said injury sustained on 10.05.2025, as such, the case was transformed to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are general allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

8. There are discrepancies in the injury report and the medical examination of the injured persons including the deceased. The memo regarding the medical examination of Shankar Gupta, filed as annexure no.3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application, indicates that it was prepared on 25.04.2025 and the said date has been mentioned at two places on the said memo. No case crime number is mentioned in it. It is referred as 'Nil/2025' and the examination of the said injured person has been conducted on 26.04.2025 at 11.26 a.m. There are two injuries sustained by the injured person and both the injuries have been found to be simple, caused by hard and blunt object and duration was less than twelve hours.

9. The memo for medical examination of another injured Ravikaran Gupta was also prepared on 25.04.2025. The said date has been mentioned at two places in it. No case crime number is mentioned in it. It is referred as 'Nil/2025'. The injuries sustained by the said injured persons were four in all and in all those four injuries, injury nos.1, 2 and 3 were found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object and the duration was less than twenty four hours. The said medical examination was conducted on 25.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. The said time and date is pertinent to be mentioned as it was one day before the institution of FIR and occurrence of the instant case. The injury no.4 in the said injury report indicates that it was caused by hard and blunt object and the duration was less than twelve hours.

10. The same is the case of third injured person informant- Smt. Kaushalya whose medical examination does not mention the date at the top of it in the proper column, rather the date is mentioned as 25.04.2024 beneath the signatures of the S.H.O. concerned and in the said memo also, the case crime number is not mentioned. It is referred as 'Nil/2025'.

11. Four injuries have been sustained by Smt. Kaushalya Devi whose medical examination was taken up on 26.04.2025 at 12:00 p.m. and three of those injuries were found simple in nature, but their duration was less than twenty four hours and the duration of injury no.4 was less tan twelve hours.

12. The said injuries and the injury report sustained by the injured persons do not match with the timing mentioned in the FIR. Even the medical examination of the son of the informant Ravikaran Gupta is stated to have been undertaken on 25.04.2024 and the duration was less than twenty four hours, which means that the occurrence is of 24.04.2025.

13. The said interpolation and the discrepancy regarding date and time of the medical examination and the duration indicates foul play. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. The deceased did not gain consciousness, as such, his dying declaration could not be recorded.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 13.05.2025 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/INFORMANT:

15. The applicants are named in the FIR and they have committed the said offence. One of the injured persons had succumbed to the injury sustained.

16. The discrepancy, if any, may not be attributed to the informant, as such, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 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 said discrepancies in the injury reports and the fact that even one of the injured persons has been examined one day prior to the incident and even the year of the incident has been overwritten, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Awdhesh and Kamlesh Gupta, who is 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad