High Court · 2025

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.09.2024 against applicant and four others and two unknown persons and according to the FIR on 21.09.2024 at about 05:30 p.m. in the evening when husband of the informant was going on the motorcycle alongiwth one Ranjeet then on the way, applicant and other accused persons intercepted them and thereafter they started making assault upon the husband of the informant through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and due to the assault made by them, husband of the informant fell down and died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when witness Ranjeet tried to escape from the spot then they ran over him, their swift dezire car bearing no.U.P. 83 AA 2080 but any how he saved himself.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits that informant is admittedly not the eye- witness.

7. He further submits that as per the prosecution, the only witness of the incident is Ranjeet and however he in his statement recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR but he actually not the eye-witness and he was not alongwith the deceased at the time of incident.

8. He further submits that the incident is said to have taken place on 21.09.2024 at 05:30 p.m. in the evening and immediately after the incident, the deceased has been taken to the hospital by his nephew Rahul where he has been declared dead and this fact is even evident from inquest report, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit.

9. He further submits that if Ranjeet would have present at spot then he either himself would have lodged the FIR or he himself immediately would have taken the deceased to the hospital and therefore, it appears that actually he was not present at spot.

10. He further submits that surprisingly during investigation, the statement of Rahul has not been recorded by the I.O. and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

11. He further submits that as per the prosecution as many as seven persons made assault upon the deceased and at the time of assault alleged eye-witness Ranjeet was also alongwith him on the motorcycle but surprisingly he did not sustain any serious injuries and from his injury report, it reflects that he sustain only one abrasion and this fact again casts doubt about his presence at the place of incident.

12. He further submits that as per the prosecution as many as seven persons badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and however, post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as many as twelve injuries but except one injury, which was on the knee (lacerated wound), all the other injuries were either contusions or abrasions and therefore, post- mortem report does not corroborate the manner of incident as alleged by the prosecution and this fact again suggests that nobody could see the real incident and due to previous enmity, which has also been admitted by the informant in the FIR, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

13. He further submits that it appears, after the incident when information was received then nephew of the deceased has taken him to the hospital and in the meantime due to previous enmity, informant, who was not even the eye-witness, lodged the FIR of the present case after taking witness Ranjeet in confidence.

14. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024.

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that it is a broad day light incident and Ranjeet was the eye-witness and he was not the chance witness as he was going on the motorcycle alongwith the deceased and he in his statement recorded during investigation categorically stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased and as accused persons also tried to commit his murder, therefore, he ran away from the spot and therefore, he neither lodged the FIR nor he has taken the deceased to the hospital but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that as per allegation, applicant and six others badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and deceased although sustained as many as twelve injuries but out of twelve injuries, except one lacerated wound, all the other injuries were either contusions or abrasions. They further could not dispute, in the incident injured Ranjeet sustained one abrasion.

16. Learned counsel for the informant however, further submits that as per the statement of the eye-witness Ranjeet when accused persons tried to crush him through their swift dezire four wheeler then their vehicle crashed into wooden log and due to that accident, their vehicle also damaged and when during investigation their vehicle was recovered then after technical inspection, it was found that the vehicle was damaged and this fact corroborates the version of the eye-witness Ranjeet and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

18. As per allegation, applicant alongwith six others made assault upon the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons due to which he sustained injuries and died but admittedly the informant of the case is not an eye-witness.

19. Further, from the record, it reflects that sole eye-witness of the incident is witness Ranjeet, who as per allegation was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident and however he in his statement recorded during investigation reiterated the version of FIR but from the record, it reflects, after the incident, he neither lodged the FIR nor he has taken the deceased to the hospital rather record suggests that nephew of the deceased namely Rahul has taken the deceased to the hospital and it is not the case of prosecution that the eye-witness Ranjeet ran away from the spot.

20. Further, even during investigation, the statement of Rahul has not been recorded by the I.O. and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

21. Further, as per allegation, as many as seven persons badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and however he sustained as many as twelve injuries but except one injury of lacerated wound, all the other injuries were either abrasions or contusions and considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident occurred in some other manner, cannot be ruled out at this stage

22. Further, however, during investigation when the alleged vehicle was recovered then after technical inspection, it was found that the same was damaged but merely on this basis, at this stage, it cannot be said that the story narrated by the sole eye-witness Ranjeet is correct.

23. Further, the sole eye-witness Ranjeet sustain only one abrasion and in the entire incident, he did not sustain any other injuries.

24. Further, enmity between both the parties are admitted.

25. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024.

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

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

28. Let the applicant- Saurabh 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 :- 23.1.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.09.2024 against applicant and four others and two unknown persons and according to the FIR on 21.09.2024 at about 05:30 p.m. in the evening when husband of the informant was going on the motorcycle alongiwth one Ranjeet then on the way, applicant and other accused persons intercepted them and thereafter they started making assault upon the husband of the informant through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and due to the assault made by them, husband of the informant fell down and died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when witness Ranjeet tried to escape from the spot then they ran over him, their swift dezire car bearing no.U.P. 83 AA 2080 but any how he saved himself.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits that informant is admittedly not the eye- witness.

7. He further submits that as per the prosecution, the only witness of the incident is Ranjeet and however he in his statement recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR but he actually not the eye-witness and he was not alongwith the deceased at the time of incident.

8. He further submits that the incident is said to have taken place on 21.09.2024 at 05:30 p.m. in the evening and immediately after the incident, the deceased has been taken to the hospital by his nephew Rahul where he has been declared dead and this fact is even evident from inquest report, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit.

9. He further submits that if Ranjeet would have present at spot then he either himself would have lodged the FIR or he himself immediately would have taken the deceased to the hospital and therefore, it appears that actually he was not present at spot.

10. He further submits that surprisingly during investigation, the statement of Rahul has not been recorded by the I.O. and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

11. He further submits that as per the prosecution as many as seven persons made assault upon the deceased and at the time of assault alleged eye-witness Ranjeet was also alongwith him on the motorcycle but surprisingly he did not sustain any serious injuries and from his injury report, it reflects that he sustain only one abrasion and this fact again casts doubt about his presence at the place of incident.

12. He further submits that as per the prosecution as many as seven persons badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and however, post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as many as twelve injuries but except one injury, which was on the knee (lacerated wound), all the other injuries were either contusions or abrasions and therefore, post- mortem report does not corroborate the manner of incident as alleged by the prosecution and this fact again suggests that nobody could see the real incident and due to previous enmity, which has also been admitted by the informant in the FIR, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

13. He further submits that it appears, after the incident when information was received then nephew of the deceased has taken him to the hospital and in the meantime due to previous enmity, informant, who was not even the eye-witness, lodged the FIR of the present case after taking witness Ranjeet in confidence.

14. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024.

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that it is a broad day light incident and Ranjeet was the eye-witness and he was not the chance witness as he was going on the motorcycle alongwith the deceased and he in his statement recorded during investigation categorically stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the deceased and as accused persons also tried to commit his murder, therefore, he ran away from the spot and therefore, he neither lodged the FIR nor he has taken the deceased to the hospital but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that as per allegation, applicant and six others badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and deceased although sustained as many as twelve injuries but out of twelve injuries, except one lacerated wound, all the other injuries were either contusions or abrasions. They further could not dispute, in the incident injured Ranjeet sustained one abrasion.

16. Learned counsel for the informant however, further submits that as per the statement of the eye-witness Ranjeet when accused persons tried to crush him through their swift dezire four wheeler then their vehicle crashed into wooden log and due to that accident, their vehicle also damaged and when during investigation their vehicle was recovered then after technical inspection, it was found that the vehicle was damaged and this fact corroborates the version of the eye-witness Ranjeet and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

18. As per allegation, applicant alongwith six others made assault upon the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons due to which he sustained injuries and died but admittedly the informant of the case is not an eye-witness.

19. Further, from the record, it reflects that sole eye-witness of the incident is witness Ranjeet, who as per allegation was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident and however he in his statement recorded during investigation reiterated the version of FIR but from the record, it reflects, after the incident, he neither lodged the FIR nor he has taken the deceased to the hospital rather record suggests that nephew of the deceased namely Rahul has taken the deceased to the hospital and it is not the case of prosecution that the eye-witness Ranjeet ran away from the spot.

20. Further, even during investigation, the statement of Rahul has not been recorded by the I.O. and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

21. Further, as per allegation, as many as seven persons badly beaten the deceased through hammer, iron rod and other weapons and however he sustained as many as twelve injuries but except one injury of lacerated wound, all the other injuries were either abrasions or contusions and considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident occurred in some other manner, cannot be ruled out at this stage

22. Further, however, during investigation when the alleged vehicle was recovered then after technical inspection, it was found that the same was damaged but merely on this basis, at this stage, it cannot be said that the story narrated by the sole eye-witness Ranjeet is correct.

23. Further, the sole eye-witness Ranjeet sustain only one abrasion and in the entire incident, he did not sustain any other injuries.

24. Further, enmity between both the parties are admitted.

25. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.09.2024.

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

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

28. Let the applicant- Saurabh 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 :- 23.1.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad