High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act and u/s 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith as many as more than ten persons.

4. He further submits, according to the FIR on the exhortation of co-accused Suresh Shukla applicant and others made assault and due to the assault made by them son and nephew of the informant sustained injuries.

5. He further submit, initially FIR of the instant case was lodged for offences u/s 323, 504, 506, 307 and 147 IPC but after death of the nephew of informant offence under section 302 IPC has been added.

6. It is next submitted that when the statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation including the statement of injured Ved Prakash then they attributed general role of assault through wooden stick to all the accused including co-accused Suresh Shukla.

7. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case co-accused Suresh Shukla has already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.3.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41717 of 2023 and considering the statements of witnesses including the statement of the injured Ved Prakash recorded during investigation, case of applicant is exactly at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla.

8. He further submitted that even considering the fact that only general role has been assigned to all the accused in the statements of witnesses including the statement of injured and there are as many as more than 10 accused in this case, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.5.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the FIR, it is apparent that only role of exhortation has been assigned to co-accused Suresh Shukla, therefore, applicant cannot be seek parity from him but they could not dispute the fact that from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation including the statement of the injured witness Ved Prakash, it appears, only general role has been attributed to all the accused including co- accused Suresh Shukla and as per their statements, case of applicant is at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.5.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation made in the FIR on the exhortation made by co-accused Suresh Shukla, applicant and others who were about 10 in numbers made assault and due to the assault made by them, one person sustained injury and one person died but when the statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation including statement of injured Ved Prakash then they attributed only general role to all the accused including co-accused Suresh Shukla and therefore, as per the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, including the statement of Ved Prakash, case of applicant is at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla and co-accused Suresh Shukla has already released on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

14. Further, only general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the accused including applicant who were more than 10 in numbers and considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since May, 2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Sarvesh Shukla, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 20.3.2025/Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC Section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act and u/s 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith as many as more than ten persons.

4. He further submits, according to the FIR on the exhortation of co-accused Suresh Shukla applicant and others made assault and due to the assault made by them son and nephew of the informant sustained injuries.

5. He further submit, initially FIR of the instant case was lodged for offences u/s 323, 504, 506, 307 and 147 IPC but after death of the nephew of informant offence under section 302 IPC has been added.

6. It is next submitted that when the statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation including the statement of injured Ved Prakash then they attributed general role of assault through wooden stick to all the accused including co-accused Suresh Shukla.

7. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case co-accused Suresh Shukla has already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.3.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41717 of 2023 and considering the statements of witnesses including the statement of the injured Ved Prakash recorded during investigation, case of applicant is exactly at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla.

8. He further submitted that even considering the fact that only general role has been assigned to all the accused in the statements of witnesses including the statement of injured and there are as many as more than 10 accused in this case, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.5.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the FIR, it is apparent that only role of exhortation has been assigned to co-accused Suresh Shukla, therefore, applicant cannot be seek parity from him but they could not dispute the fact that from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation including the statement of the injured witness Ved Prakash, it appears, only general role has been attributed to all the accused including co- accused Suresh Shukla and as per their statements, case of applicant is at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.5.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation made in the FIR on the exhortation made by co-accused Suresh Shukla, applicant and others who were about 10 in numbers made assault and due to the assault made by them, one person sustained injury and one person died but when the statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation including statement of injured Ved Prakash then they attributed only general role to all the accused including co-accused Suresh Shukla and therefore, as per the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, including the statement of Ved Prakash, case of applicant is at par with co-accused Suresh Shukla and co-accused Suresh Shukla has already released on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

14. Further, only general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the accused including applicant who were more than 10 in numbers and considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since May, 2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Sarvesh Shukla, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 20.3.2025/Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad