High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5223 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38010 of 2024 Applicant :- Himanshu Raikwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in S.T.No.505 of
Legal Reasoning
2024 arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2024, under Sections
Legal Reasoning
103(1) AND 238 BNS, Police Station Srinagar, District Mahoba during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 3.7.2024 against unknown persons and according to the FIR, in the night of 1/2.7.2024 some unknown persons committed the murder of the brother of the informant and concealed his dead body near a temple. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but after four days from the date of lodgement of the FIR applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of statement of Badri Yadav, priest of the temple. 5. He further submits that witness Badri Yadav claimed herself to be an eye witness and stated that on 1.7.2024 in the late night dispute arose between deceased, applicant and one Battidada @ Arvind Yadav and thereafter both made assault upon the deceased through wooden stick but his statement does not appear to be convincing as in his statement witness Badri Yadav himself admitted that his eye sight is very weak and with great difficulty he can see. 6. He further submits that if the witness Badri Yadav would have witnessed the incident then he would have definitely disclosed this fact to the Police even before lodgement of the FIR of the present case as FIR of the present case was lodged after two days of alleged incident. 7. He further submits that it appears, nobody could witness the real incident and during investigation witness Badri Yadav has been planted by Investigating Officer. 8. He further submits that however, from the record it also reflects that apart from Badri Yadav his pupil Bhupendra Prajapati also witnessed the incident but his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer on 5.8.2024, i.e., after more than a month from the date of incident and, therefore, it appears that he was also not the eye witness. 9. He further submits that except the statements of Badri Yadav and Bhupendra Prajapati, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in paragraph-34 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it appears that in all the cases police implicated the applicant and in all cases he is on bail. 11. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.7.2024. 12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that witness Badri Yadav, the priest of the temple and his pupil Bhupendra Prajapati, were the eye witnesses but he could not dispute the fact that the statement of Badri Yadav was recorded by Investigating Officer after six days from the date of incident while the statement of Bhupendra Prajapati was recorded after more than month from the date of alleged incident. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation after six days from the date of alleged incident applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of Badri Yadav but it appears that statement of Badri Yadav was recorded after six days from the date of incident and after four days from the date of FIR. Further, statement of does not appear to be convincing. 15. Further, however, as per prosecution apart from Badri Yadav one witness Bhupendra Prajapati the pupil of Badri Yadav also witnessed the incident but his statement was recorded after beyond a month from the date of alleged incident and except the statement of Badri Yadav and Bhupendra Yadav, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record and considering the delay in recording their statements and the fact that earlier they did not disclose about the incident to anyone including the Police, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 16. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in all the cases he is on bail. 17. Further, applicant is in jail the present matter since 17.7.2024. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant-Himanshu Raikwar 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 10.1.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad