High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.09.2024 against applicant and two others and according to the FIR, on 10.09.2024 at about 7 p.m. in the evening applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the son of the informant and the incident has been witnessed by witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma S/o Raghuvansh Verma. It is further mentioned in the FIR that accused persons left their vehicle at spot and ran away.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that from the FIR, it reflects that informant is not an eye-witness and eye-witnesses were two brothers Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma but from the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects, he developed a new story in his statement and stated that when after information he arrived at the place of incident then his son informed him before his death that applicant and two others caused injuries to him and this fact clearly suggests that informant wanted to implicate the applicant in the present matter alongwith others.

6. He further submits that from the statements of Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, the two brothers, it however reflects, they were eye- witnesses but from their statements also, it reflects that they were not truthful witness as according to them, they were alongwith informant on the motorcycle and all the three simultaneously witnessed the incident but neither from the FIR nor from the statement of the informant, it could be reflected that he witnessed the real incident on his own and was on the motorcycle alongwith witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma.

7. He further submits that even from the statements of Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, it also reflects that they witnessed the real incident in the light of the motorcycle and no weapon has been assigned by them to any of the accused however from the post- mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained incised wounds and this fact also suggests that actually no one could witness the real incident.

8. He further submits that alleged eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, the two brothers were highly inimical with the family of the applicant.

9. He further submits that a revenue case is pending between the family of applicant and both the eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma and grand-father of the applicant filed a case against their father in the year 2022, which is still pending and plaint of same has been annexed at page 15 of the supplementary affidavit and only due to this previous enmity, Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, who were although not the eye-witnesses, started claiming that they are the eye-witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.

10. He further submits that except the above evidences, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that when informant after receiving information arrived at the place of incident then deceased informed him that applicant and two others caused injury to him but could not dispute the fact that this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR. Both the counsel further argued that Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, who were two brothers, were the eye-witnesses and they categorically stated that they witnessed the applicant and others while they were making assault upon the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that even from their statements, it reflects, they were chance witnesses and from their statements, it also reflects that on their motorcycle informant was also sitting and he also witnessed the incident alongwith them but this fact has not been disclosed by the informant either in the FIR or in his statement recorded during investigation.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that a revenue case is pending between the families of applicant and both eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, which was filed by grandfather of the applicant against number of others including father of eye- witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma.

14. They however further submits that from the place of incident motorcycle of co-accused Vishal Verma was recovered, which was used in the crime.

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

16. However, it reflects, witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma were the eye-witnesses, who as per the prosecution, witnessed the real incident but from their statements, it reflects, they were the chance witnesses.

17. Further, considering the plaint of the revenue case annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, it reflects, a revenue case is pending between the families of applicant and both eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, which was filed by grandfather of the applicant against number of others including father of eye- witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma and considering this, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as both Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma were inimical with the applicant, therefore, they stated against the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, it reflects, alongwith them on the same motorcycle father of the deceased i.e. informant was also sitting and he also witnessed the real incident but this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR or in his statement recorded during investigation and from these documents, it appears, he was not an eye-witness and this fact also casts doubt on prosecution version.

19. Further, from the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it however reflects, when after receiving information, he arrived at the place of incident then his son i.e. deceased before his death disclosed the name of the applicant and others but this fact also did not disclose by informant either in the FIR and considering this, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant with intention to implicate the applicant in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, however, as per prosecution from the place of incident motorcycle of co-accused Vishal Verma was recovered but admittedly that motorcycle did not belong to the applicant.

21. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

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

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

24. Let the applicant- Dileep Kumar Verma Alias Guddu Verma 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 24.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.09.2024 against applicant and two others and according to the FIR, on 10.09.2024 at about 7 p.m. in the evening applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the son of the informant and the incident has been witnessed by witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma S/o Raghuvansh Verma. It is further mentioned in the FIR that accused persons left their vehicle at spot and ran away.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that from the FIR, it reflects that informant is not an eye-witness and eye-witnesses were two brothers Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma but from the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects, he developed a new story in his statement and stated that when after information he arrived at the place of incident then his son informed him before his death that applicant and two others caused injuries to him and this fact clearly suggests that informant wanted to implicate the applicant in the present matter alongwith others.

6. He further submits that from the statements of Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, the two brothers, it however reflects, they were eye- witnesses but from their statements also, it reflects that they were not truthful witness as according to them, they were alongwith informant on the motorcycle and all the three simultaneously witnessed the incident but neither from the FIR nor from the statement of the informant, it could be reflected that he witnessed the real incident on his own and was on the motorcycle alongwith witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma.

7. He further submits that even from the statements of Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, it also reflects that they witnessed the real incident in the light of the motorcycle and no weapon has been assigned by them to any of the accused however from the post- mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained incised wounds and this fact also suggests that actually no one could witness the real incident.

8. He further submits that alleged eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, the two brothers were highly inimical with the family of the applicant.

9. He further submits that a revenue case is pending between the family of applicant and both the eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma and grand-father of the applicant filed a case against their father in the year 2022, which is still pending and plaint of same has been annexed at page 15 of the supplementary affidavit and only due to this previous enmity, Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, who were although not the eye-witnesses, started claiming that they are the eye-witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.

10. He further submits that except the above evidences, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

11. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that when informant after receiving information arrived at the place of incident then deceased informed him that applicant and two others caused injury to him but could not dispute the fact that this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR. Both the counsel further argued that Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, who were two brothers, were the eye-witnesses and they categorically stated that they witnessed the applicant and others while they were making assault upon the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that even from their statements, it reflects, they were chance witnesses and from their statements, it also reflects that on their motorcycle informant was also sitting and he also witnessed the incident alongwith them but this fact has not been disclosed by the informant either in the FIR or in his statement recorded during investigation.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that a revenue case is pending between the families of applicant and both eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, which was filed by grandfather of the applicant against number of others including father of eye- witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma.

14. They however further submits that from the place of incident motorcycle of co-accused Vishal Verma was recovered, which was used in the crime.

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

16. However, it reflects, witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma were the eye-witnesses, who as per the prosecution, witnessed the real incident but from their statements, it reflects, they were the chance witnesses.

17. Further, considering the plaint of the revenue case annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, it reflects, a revenue case is pending between the families of applicant and both eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, which was filed by grandfather of the applicant against number of others including father of eye- witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma and considering this, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as both Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma were inimical with the applicant, therefore, they stated against the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses Rahul Verma and Rohit Verma, it reflects, alongwith them on the same motorcycle father of the deceased i.e. informant was also sitting and he also witnessed the real incident but this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR or in his statement recorded during investigation and from these documents, it appears, he was not an eye-witness and this fact also casts doubt on prosecution version.

19. Further, from the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it however reflects, when after receiving information, he arrived at the place of incident then his son i.e. deceased before his death disclosed the name of the applicant and others but this fact also did not disclose by informant either in the FIR and considering this, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently a new story has been developed by the informant with intention to implicate the applicant in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, however, as per prosecution from the place of incident motorcycle of co-accused Vishal Verma was recovered but admittedly that motorcycle did not belong to the applicant.

21. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last more than five months.

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

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

24. Let the applicant- Dileep Kumar Verma Alias Guddu Verma 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 24.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad