High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Jhankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sahu,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devashish Mitra,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. On previous date, a report was called from the court concerned why illegible certified copy of the FIR has been issued. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court concerned submitted its report and from its perusal, it reflects that as original FIR filed by the Investigating Agency was blurred one, therefore, its legible copy could not be issued. However, alongwith the report court concerned also transmitted legible photo copy of the FIR of the present case, therefore, matter is being heard.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Madhesiya, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent and Sri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.04.2024 against applicant and three others, under Section 364 I.P.C. and according to the FIR, son of the informant was driving the four wheeler of Neeraj and on 28.04.2024 he had gone to Pooranpur alongwith four wheeler of Neeraj but did not return. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and three other accused persons abducted him alongwith the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 364 I.P.C. but after recovery of the dead-body of the son of the informant, the case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

7. He further submits that as informant had already named the applicant as an accused in the FIR, therefore, during investigation when statements of the maternal uncles of the deceased namely Beerbal and Mahesh were recorded then they started making allegation that they witnessed the applicant and deceased alongwith other accused persons on 28.04.2024 at 5 p.m. in the evening, therefore, even the evidence of last seen given by both these witnesses does not appear to be convincing.

8. He further submits that even merely on the basis of evidence of last seen, it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of the alleged offence.

9. He further submits that admittedly neither vehicle of the deceased nor his dead-body could be recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case earlier applicant was also made accused in a case relates to offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. but in that case, he has already been acquitted.

11. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.05.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and even evidence of last seen was given by maternal uncles of the deceased.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, applicant has been made accused alongwith others in the FIR of the present case on the basis of suspicion and however, during investigation, two maternal uncles of the deceased gave evidence of last seen against him and other accused but except the evidence of last seen, it appears, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record and considering the fact that evidence of last seen has been given by close relatives of the informant and deceased, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even evidence of last seen does not appear to be convincing, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case earlier also applicant was made accused in a case relates to offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. but it appears, in that case, he has already been acquitted.

16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.05.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

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- Jhankar 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 her 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 :- 6.2.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Jhankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sahu,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devashish Mitra,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. On previous date, a report was called from the court concerned why illegible certified copy of the FIR has been issued. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court concerned submitted its report and from its perusal, it reflects that as original FIR filed by the Investigating Agency was blurred one, therefore, its legible copy could not be issued. However, alongwith the report court concerned also transmitted legible photo copy of the FIR of the present case, therefore, matter is being heard.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Madhesiya, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent and Sri Devashish Mitra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.04.2024 against applicant and three others, under Section 364 I.P.C. and according to the FIR, son of the informant was driving the four wheeler of Neeraj and on 28.04.2024 he had gone to Pooranpur alongwith four wheeler of Neeraj but did not return. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and three other accused persons abducted him alongwith the vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 364 I.P.C. but after recovery of the dead-body of the son of the informant, the case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

7. He further submits that as informant had already named the applicant as an accused in the FIR, therefore, during investigation when statements of the maternal uncles of the deceased namely Beerbal and Mahesh were recorded then they started making allegation that they witnessed the applicant and deceased alongwith other accused persons on 28.04.2024 at 5 p.m. in the evening, therefore, even the evidence of last seen given by both these witnesses does not appear to be convincing.

8. He further submits that even merely on the basis of evidence of last seen, it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of the alleged offence.

9. He further submits that admittedly neither vehicle of the deceased nor his dead-body could be recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case earlier applicant was also made accused in a case relates to offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. but in that case, he has already been acquitted.

11. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.05.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and even evidence of last seen was given by maternal uncles of the deceased.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, applicant has been made accused alongwith others in the FIR of the present case on the basis of suspicion and however, during investigation, two maternal uncles of the deceased gave evidence of last seen against him and other accused but except the evidence of last seen, it appears, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record and considering the fact that evidence of last seen has been given by close relatives of the informant and deceased, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even evidence of last seen does not appear to be convincing, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case earlier also applicant was made accused in a case relates to offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. but it appears, in that case, he has already been acquitted.

16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.05.2024 i.e. for last almost nine months.

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- Jhankar 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 her 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 :- 6.2.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad