High Court · 2025

Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.273 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 190 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.07.2024 against applicant and seven others and according to the FIR, on

20.07.2024 at about 11 p.m. in the night, co-accused Charan Singh called the brother of the informant and when brother of the informant arrived at his roof then he alongwith others including applicant committed the murder of his brother by causing injuries through wooden sticks, bricks and iron rods.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith seven others.

6. He further submits that applicant did not reside alongwith co- accused Charan Singh and therefore, there was no occasion for him to present on his roof in the night at 11 p.m. and it appears only being his nephew, he has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submits that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused in the FIR as well as in the statements of the alleged witnesses recorded during investigation.

8. He further submits that admittedly deceased died at the roof of the co-accused Charan Singh and therefore, it is hard to believe that informant and others witnessed the real incident and this fact again suggests that only being nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith seven others.

9. He further submits that considering the fact that aongwith applicant as many as seven others were also named in the FIR on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, prima-facie, present case appears to be a case of over implication.

10. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, simultaneously eight persons made assault upon the deceased but inspite of that he sustained only three injuries and out of three injuries, two injuries were on non-vital part and it appears, he died due to crush injury sustained by him on his head and there is no evidence, which can suggests that applicant caused this injury to him.

11. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Anees, one blood-stained brick and one blood-stained vests were recovered but recovery memo suggests that the recovery has been made from such a place, which was accessible to all.

12. He further submits that till date alleged recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime.

13. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant has been named in the FIR alongwith others and incident has been witnessed by number of witnesses including informant and they categorically stated that applicant also involved in the present crime.

15. They further submit that when applicant was arrested then on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Anees, one blood- stained brick used in the crime and one blood-stained vest were recovered and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent and therefore, he does not deserve bail.

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

17. In the FIR of the present case applicant has been made accused alongwith seven others on the basis of general and omnibus allegations and considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage specially considering the fact that applicant is nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh.

18. Further, from the record, it also reflects that motive to commit the murder of the deceased was against co-accused Charan Singh.

19. Further, informant and others however were eye-witnesses but admittedly the incident occurred on the roof of co-accused Charan Singh and considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it was not possible for the informant and other witnesses to witness the real incident, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, as per prosecution, as many as eight persons made assault upon the deceased but inspite of that he sustained only three injuries and out of three injuries, two injuries were on non- vital part and only one injury, which was on his head, was on vital part and there is no evidence, which can suggests that applicant caused this injury to him.

21. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

22. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

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- Totaram, 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 :- 19.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.273 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 190 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.07.2024 against applicant and seven others and according to the FIR, on

20.07.2024 at about 11 p.m. in the night, co-accused Charan Singh called the brother of the informant and when brother of the informant arrived at his roof then he alongwith others including applicant committed the murder of his brother by causing injuries through wooden sticks, bricks and iron rods.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith seven others.

6. He further submits that applicant did not reside alongwith co- accused Charan Singh and therefore, there was no occasion for him to present on his roof in the night at 11 p.m. and it appears only being his nephew, he has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submits that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused in the FIR as well as in the statements of the alleged witnesses recorded during investigation.

8. He further submits that admittedly deceased died at the roof of the co-accused Charan Singh and therefore, it is hard to believe that informant and others witnessed the real incident and this fact again suggests that only being nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith seven others.

9. He further submits that considering the fact that aongwith applicant as many as seven others were also named in the FIR on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, prima-facie, present case appears to be a case of over implication.

10. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, simultaneously eight persons made assault upon the deceased but inspite of that he sustained only three injuries and out of three injuries, two injuries were on non-vital part and it appears, he died due to crush injury sustained by him on his head and there is no evidence, which can suggests that applicant caused this injury to him.

11. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Anees, one blood-stained brick and one blood-stained vests were recovered but recovery memo suggests that the recovery has been made from such a place, which was accessible to all.

12. He further submits that till date alleged recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime.

13. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant has been named in the FIR alongwith others and incident has been witnessed by number of witnesses including informant and they categorically stated that applicant also involved in the present crime.

15. They further submit that when applicant was arrested then on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused Anees, one blood- stained brick used in the crime and one blood-stained vest were recovered and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent and therefore, he does not deserve bail.

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

17. In the FIR of the present case applicant has been made accused alongwith seven others on the basis of general and omnibus allegations and considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage specially considering the fact that applicant is nephew of the co-accused Charan Singh.

18. Further, from the record, it also reflects that motive to commit the murder of the deceased was against co-accused Charan Singh.

19. Further, informant and others however were eye-witnesses but admittedly the incident occurred on the roof of co-accused Charan Singh and considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it was not possible for the informant and other witnesses to witness the real incident, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, as per prosecution, as many as eight persons made assault upon the deceased but inspite of that he sustained only three injuries and out of three injuries, two injuries were on non- vital part and only one injury, which was on his head, was on vital part and there is no evidence, which can suggests that applicant caused this injury to him.

21. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 26.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

22. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent.

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- Totaram, 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 :- 19.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad