High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2941 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43656 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ankit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.532 of 2024, under Sections 323, 326-A, 304 IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.06.2024 against the applicant and his three friends under Sections 323, 326-A IPC and according to the FIR, applicant along with his three friends made assault upon the informant and when informant had gone to his home then they threw some chemical upon his nephew due to which, he sustained chemical burn injuries and he was admitted to the hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case is based on vague facts and not even date and time has been mentioned in it. 5. He further submits that admittedly informant is not eye witness as even according to him incident occurs when he left for his home but suddenly after 17 days the statement of the maternal grandmother of the deceased was recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and she claimed herself as eye witness of the alleged incident but even from her statement it reflects that she witnessed the applicant and others while they were running from the spot and this fact suggest that actually she was not an eye witness. 6. He further submits that except the statement of maternal grandmother of the deceased there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further submits that it appears, as some dispute of applicant arose with informant, therefore, subsequently when his nephew sustained burn injuries then only due to previous dispute applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 8. He further submits that prosecution has not come with any motive against the applicant and this fact again suggest that actually applicant has falsely been made accused in the present matter. 9. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 01.09.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which nephew of the informant died due to chemical burn injuries and as per allegation applicant and his three friends poured chemical upon him and maternal grandmother of the deceased was eye witness of the alleged incident but he could not dispute the fact that statement of maternal grandmother of the deceased was recorded by the investigating officer after more than two weeks. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that except her statement there is no eye witness account. 11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that prosecution could not come with any motive against the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation applicant and his three friends threw acid upon the nephew of the informant and due to which, he sustained chemical burn injuries and died. From the record it reflects that informant is not eye witness. However, maternal grandmother of the deceased claimed herself to be eye witness of the incident and she has stated that applicant and his three friends poured chemical upon his grandson i.e. deceased but it appears that her statement was recorded after more than two weeks and there is no plausible explanation in this regard. 14. Further even from the statement of the maternal grandmother of the deceased it appears that she witnessed the applicant and other while they were running from the spot and after considering above facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that even alleged sole eye witness could not witness the real incident cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further, FIR of the present case is based on vague facts as neither time nor date of incident has been mentioned in it. 15. Further from the record it also reflects that earlier some dispute has arose between the informant and applicant and considering this fact the reason of false implication of applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 01.09.2024. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant - Vinod 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 7.1.2025 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad