Mahendra v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mahendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 40 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Syana, District Bulandshahar.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35700 of 2023 (Mahendra Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which the first informant Anil Kumar was examined as PW-1, Smt. Rachana wife of the deceased has been examined as PW-2 and Rohit the alleged eye witness has been examined as PW-3, he has placed before the Court the said three statements which are annexed as annexure 4 to 6 to the affidavit. While placing the statement of PW-2 Smt. Rachana it is submitted that in her cross examination she states that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer after 12 days of the incident. It is submitted that as such her presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. While placing the statement of Rohit Kumar PW-3 the alleged eye witness it is submitted that he stated that he does not remember whether any case is being contested with Kalua by him or not. It is submitted that as such both the witnesses are not trustworthy. The applicant is in jail since 12.02.2023.

6. Per contra, 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 16.08.2023. It is submitted that three witnesses have been examined before the trial court and supported the prosecution case and reading of the statements 2 BAIL No. 34179 of 2024 and giving a finding regarding their credential in a bail application would not be proper and would effect the trial. It is submitted that no new and fresh ground argued. It is submitted that as such the bail application be rejected.

7. 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 16.08.2023 . The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Mahendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 40 of 2023, under Section 302/34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahar.

3. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 10.02.2023 by Anil Kumar against the applicant alleging therein that his brother Sanjay Kumar was having a shop of general merchant in the village. On 10.02.2023 at about 8.30 pm his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by the applicant with a knife near the house of the applicant due to which he died. The incident was seen by a lot of people along with his cousin Rohit.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there was a dispute going on between the parties with regards to land. It is argued that the deceased was stated to have assaulted by a knife in the first information report but the eye-witness Rohit has stated of assault upon the deceased by Mahendra the applicant with a ballam. It is argued that the same is not consistent. It is argued that the injuries as received by the deceased could not have been caused by a knife. It is argued that the incident is a night incident. It is further argued while placing paragraph 13 of the affidavit that co-accused Anto and Peetam have been granted bail vide orders dated

08.05.2023 and 01.06.2023 by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, the copy of the said orders have been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit. It is argued that recovery of the alleged ballam on the pointing out of the applicant is a false and a planted recovery. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 12.02.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased. It is argued that in so far as the other 02 co-accused persons are concerned who have been granted bail, they were not named in the first information report. Learned counsel has argued that on the pointing out of the applicant a ballam which was the weapon of assault has been recovered. The injuries as per the postmortem examination report corroborates from the prosecution version. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report as the sole accused and has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased. Rohit is an eye-witness of the incident who has also assigned the role of assault upon the deceased by the applicant with a ballam. Ballam has been recovered on the pointing out 3 BAIL No. 34179 of 2024 of the applicant. Co-accused who have been granted bail were not named in the first information report and as such their case is distinguishable with that of the applicant. The postmortem examination report corroborates with the prosecution story. No ground is made out.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

8. The trial in the present matter has started in which three witnesses namely Anil Kumar/PW-1/first informant, Smt. Rachana/PW-2 the wife of the deceased and Rohit Kumar/PW-3 the alleged eye witness has been examined. All the three witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Merely by reading of the cross examination and giving a finding regarding their testimony is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

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

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mahendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 40 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, registered at P.S. Syana, District Bulandshahar.

4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 35700 of 2023 (Mahendra Vs. State of U.P.).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which the first informant Anil Kumar was examined as PW-1, Smt. Rachana wife of the deceased has been examined as PW-2 and Rohit the alleged eye witness has been examined as PW-3, he has placed before the Court the said three statements which are annexed as annexure 4 to 6 to the affidavit. While placing the statement of PW-2 Smt. Rachana it is submitted that in her cross examination she states that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer after 12 days of the incident. It is submitted that as such her presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. While placing the statement of Rohit Kumar PW-3 the alleged eye witness it is submitted that he stated that he does not remember whether any case is being contested with Kalua by him or not. It is submitted that as such both the witnesses are not trustworthy. The applicant is in jail since 12.02.2023.

6. Per contra, 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 16.08.2023. It is submitted that three witnesses have been examined before the trial court and supported the prosecution case and reading of the statements 2 BAIL No. 34179 of 2024 and giving a finding regarding their credential in a bail application would not be proper and would effect the trial. It is submitted that no new and fresh ground argued. It is submitted that as such the bail application be rejected.

7. 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 16.08.2023 . The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Mahendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 40 of 2023, under Section 302/34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahar.

3. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 10.02.2023 by Anil Kumar against the applicant alleging therein that his brother Sanjay Kumar was having a shop of general merchant in the village. On 10.02.2023 at about 8.30 pm his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by the applicant with a knife near the house of the applicant due to which he died. The incident was seen by a lot of people along with his cousin Rohit.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there was a dispute going on between the parties with regards to land. It is argued that the deceased was stated to have assaulted by a knife in the first information report but the eye-witness Rohit has stated of assault upon the deceased by Mahendra the applicant with a ballam. It is argued that the same is not consistent. It is argued that the injuries as received by the deceased could not have been caused by a knife. It is argued that the incident is a night incident. It is further argued while placing paragraph 13 of the affidavit that co-accused Anto and Peetam have been granted bail vide orders dated

08.05.2023 and 01.06.2023 by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, the copy of the said orders have been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit. It is argued that recovery of the alleged ballam on the pointing out of the applicant is a false and a planted recovery. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 12.02.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased. It is argued that in so far as the other 02 co-accused persons are concerned who have been granted bail, they were not named in the first information report. Learned counsel has argued that on the pointing out of the applicant a ballam which was the weapon of assault has been recovered. The injuries as per the postmortem examination report corroborates from the prosecution version. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report as the sole accused and has been assigned the role of assault upon the deceased. Rohit is an eye-witness of the incident who has also assigned the role of assault upon the deceased by the applicant with a ballam. Ballam has been recovered on the pointing out 3 BAIL No. 34179 of 2024 of the applicant. Co-accused who have been granted bail were not named in the first information report and as such their case is distinguishable with that of the applicant. The postmortem examination report corroborates with the prosecution story. No ground is made out.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

8. The trial in the present matter has started in which three witnesses namely Anil Kumar/PW-1/first informant, Smt. Rachana/PW-2 the wife of the deceased and Rohit Kumar/PW-3 the alleged eye witness has been examined. All the three witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Merely by reading of the cross examination and giving a finding regarding their testimony is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

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

10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 10, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad