High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.06.2024 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, on 23.06.2024 at about 11 a.m. some dispute arose between co-acused Aman and sister of the informant and thereafter he alongwith others including applicant after entering in the house of the informant made assault upon them through wooden sticks and iron rod. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and co-accused Aman made assault on the head of the mother of the informant through iron rod due to which she sustained serious injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 308, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. but after the death of the mother of the informant, case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. She further submits that initially FIR was also lodged under Section 452 I.P.C. but when during investigation it was found that actually incident occurred outside the house of the informant then offence under Section 452 I.P.C. has been removed.

6. She further submits that however, as per the prosecution, in the incident four persons sustained injuries and out of which one i.e. mother of the informant died and in the FIR there is specific allegation that applicant and co-accused Aman caused head injury to the deceased but when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant.

7. She further submits that even the two injured witnesses also in their statements assigned only general role to all the accused but when the I.O. put some questions from them then they stated that co-accused Aman gave blow of wooden stick on the head of the deceased.

8. She further submits that during investigation, statements of number of other eye-witnesses were also recorded by the I.O. and they categorically stated that actually co-accused Aman and Harsh were the principal accused and they made assault upon the deceased and others and they categorically stated that applicant did not cause any injury to anyone.

9. She further submits that however, in the incident apart from deceased, three persons also sustained injuries but their injuries were simple in nature.

10. She further submits that actually applicant is friend of the co- accused Aman and therefore, he has also been made accused in the present matter and in fact he did not participate in the alleged incident of assault.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant is specifically named in the FIR alongwith three others and in the FIR, it has been specifically mentioned that he alongwith co- accused Aman made assault upon the deceased.

13. They further submits that even from the statements of the injured witnesses, it reflects, applicant also participated in the incident but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that when statement of informant was recorded during investigation then he did not state that applicant and co-accused Aman made assault upon the deceased on her head and he attributed only general role to all the accused.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that other remaining two injured witnesses specifically attributed the role of causing injury on the head of the deceased to co-accused Aman.

15. They further could not dispute the fact that as per the statements of other eye-witnesses, which were recorded by I.O. during investigation, applicant did not participate in the alleged incident of assault.

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

17. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith three others and as per the FIR he alongwith co-accused Aman made assault upon the head of the deceased but when the statement of informant was recorded during investigation, who was one of the injured then he assigned only general role to all the accused.

18. Further, from the statements of the other two injured witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects that they attributed specific role of causing head injury to the deceased to co-accused Aman.

19. Further, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests however, she sustained four injuries but she died due to head injury and she sustained single head injury.

20. Further, from the statements of the independent witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects, they specifically stated that applicant did not participate in the alleged incident of assault and role of causing injury to the deceased and the injured have been assigned by them to co-accused Aman and Harsh.

21. Further, considering the argument advanced by learned cousnel for the applicant that applicant is the close friend of co-accused Aman, his false implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

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

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

25. Let the applicant- Minku, 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 10.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.06.2024 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, on 23.06.2024 at about 11 a.m. some dispute arose between co-acused Aman and sister of the informant and thereafter he alongwith others including applicant after entering in the house of the informant made assault upon them through wooden sticks and iron rod. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and co-accused Aman made assault on the head of the mother of the informant through iron rod due to which she sustained serious injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 308, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. but after the death of the mother of the informant, case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. She further submits that initially FIR was also lodged under Section 452 I.P.C. but when during investigation it was found that actually incident occurred outside the house of the informant then offence under Section 452 I.P.C. has been removed.

6. She further submits that however, as per the prosecution, in the incident four persons sustained injuries and out of which one i.e. mother of the informant died and in the FIR there is specific allegation that applicant and co-accused Aman caused head injury to the deceased but when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant.

7. She further submits that even the two injured witnesses also in their statements assigned only general role to all the accused but when the I.O. put some questions from them then they stated that co-accused Aman gave blow of wooden stick on the head of the deceased.

8. She further submits that during investigation, statements of number of other eye-witnesses were also recorded by the I.O. and they categorically stated that actually co-accused Aman and Harsh were the principal accused and they made assault upon the deceased and others and they categorically stated that applicant did not cause any injury to anyone.

9. She further submits that however, in the incident apart from deceased, three persons also sustained injuries but their injuries were simple in nature.

10. She further submits that actually applicant is friend of the co- accused Aman and therefore, he has also been made accused in the present matter and in fact he did not participate in the alleged incident of assault.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant is specifically named in the FIR alongwith three others and in the FIR, it has been specifically mentioned that he alongwith co- accused Aman made assault upon the deceased.

13. They further submits that even from the statements of the injured witnesses, it reflects, applicant also participated in the incident but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that when statement of informant was recorded during investigation then he did not state that applicant and co-accused Aman made assault upon the deceased on her head and he attributed only general role to all the accused.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that other remaining two injured witnesses specifically attributed the role of causing injury on the head of the deceased to co-accused Aman.

15. They further could not dispute the fact that as per the statements of other eye-witnesses, which were recorded by I.O. during investigation, applicant did not participate in the alleged incident of assault.

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

17. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith three others and as per the FIR he alongwith co-accused Aman made assault upon the head of the deceased but when the statement of informant was recorded during investigation, who was one of the injured then he assigned only general role to all the accused.

18. Further, from the statements of the other two injured witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects that they attributed specific role of causing head injury to the deceased to co-accused Aman.

19. Further, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests however, she sustained four injuries but she died due to head injury and she sustained single head injury.

20. Further, from the statements of the independent witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects, they specifically stated that applicant did not participate in the alleged incident of assault and role of causing injury to the deceased and the injured have been assigned by them to co-accused Aman and Harsh.

21. Further, considering the argument advanced by learned cousnel for the applicant that applicant is the close friend of co-accused Aman, his false implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

22. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 17.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

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

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

25. Let the applicant- Minku, 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 :- 10.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad