High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Neeraj Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2024, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants and co-accused Sushma Devi i.e. wife of the applicant no. 1 and according to the FIR on 12.6.2024 at about 7:00 PM in the evening, due to enmity, applicants alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi made assault upon the son of the informant through wooden stick and axe.

4. It is further submitted that after hearing the noise when informant arrived at spot then found that his son was lying on the road.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC but after the death of the injured, case was converted under section 302 IPC.

6. He further submitted that from the perusal of the FIR it reflects that informant could not witness the real incident and he arrived at spot after the incident.

7. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of some other witnesses but from their statements, also which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the real incident.

8. He further submitted that even from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained only single injury on his head one contused swelling over his left parietal region and therefore, present case does not even travel beyond section 304 IPC.

9. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicants were the persons who caused head injury to the deceased.

10. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case, co-accused Sushma Devi has already been released on bail by this Court and her bail order has been annexed at page-76 of the paper book and on facts case of applicants is at par with him.

11. He further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.6.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that co-accused Sushma Devi was lady and therefore, her case was distinguishable from the applicants.

13. They further submitted that there is specific allegation that applicants alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi, made assault upon the deceased due to which he sustained injuries and died and from perusal of the statements of witness recorded during investigation, at this stage, it cannot be said that they were not eye witnesses rather from their statement, it reflects that they witnessed the incident but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that deceased sustained only one contused swelling on his head and informant does not appear to be eye witness.

14. They further submitted that applicant No. 1 is, however, having criminal history of one case but that case relates to minor offence. They could not dispute, applicant no. 2 is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, applicants are in jail since 21.6.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

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

16. However, applicants have been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi but from the FIR, it could not be reflected that informant was the eye witness.

17. Further, during investigation, however, statements of some witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and they, however, initially stated that after hearing noise, informant arrived at spot and found that his son was lying in injured condition but subsequently, they stated that they tried to save the deceased and thereafter, applicants and co-accused managed to escape from the spot but from earlier part of their statements, it could not be reflected that they were present at spot.

18. Be that as it may, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained only one contusion on his parietal region and considering this fact, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the present case does not travel beyond section 304 IPC, cannot be brushed aside, at this stage.

19. Further, co-accused Sushma Devi has already been released on bail by this Court and on facts case of applicants is at par with him as only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons.

20. Further, applicant No. 1 is however, having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and applicant no. 2 is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, applicants are in jail since 21.6.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

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

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

23. Let the applicants-Awadhesh Nishad and Deenanath Nishad, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade their from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. 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 applicants.

25. 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 :- 22.1.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Neeraj Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2024, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants and co-accused Sushma Devi i.e. wife of the applicant no. 1 and according to the FIR on 12.6.2024 at about 7:00 PM in the evening, due to enmity, applicants alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi made assault upon the son of the informant through wooden stick and axe.

4. It is further submitted that after hearing the noise when informant arrived at spot then found that his son was lying on the road.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC but after the death of the injured, case was converted under section 302 IPC.

6. He further submitted that from the perusal of the FIR it reflects that informant could not witness the real incident and he arrived at spot after the incident.

7. He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of some other witnesses but from their statements, also which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the real incident.

8. He further submitted that even from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained only single injury on his head one contused swelling over his left parietal region and therefore, present case does not even travel beyond section 304 IPC.

9. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicants were the persons who caused head injury to the deceased.

10. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case, co-accused Sushma Devi has already been released on bail by this Court and her bail order has been annexed at page-76 of the paper book and on facts case of applicants is at par with him.

11. He further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.6.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that co-accused Sushma Devi was lady and therefore, her case was distinguishable from the applicants.

13. They further submitted that there is specific allegation that applicants alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi, made assault upon the deceased due to which he sustained injuries and died and from perusal of the statements of witness recorded during investigation, at this stage, it cannot be said that they were not eye witnesses rather from their statement, it reflects that they witnessed the incident but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that deceased sustained only one contused swelling on his head and informant does not appear to be eye witness.

14. They further submitted that applicant No. 1 is, however, having criminal history of one case but that case relates to minor offence. They could not dispute, applicant no. 2 is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, applicants are in jail since 21.6.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

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

16. However, applicants have been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Sushma Devi but from the FIR, it could not be reflected that informant was the eye witness.

17. Further, during investigation, however, statements of some witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and they, however, initially stated that after hearing noise, informant arrived at spot and found that his son was lying in injured condition but subsequently, they stated that they tried to save the deceased and thereafter, applicants and co-accused managed to escape from the spot but from earlier part of their statements, it could not be reflected that they were present at spot.

18. Be that as it may, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained only one contusion on his parietal region and considering this fact, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the present case does not travel beyond section 304 IPC, cannot be brushed aside, at this stage.

19. Further, co-accused Sushma Devi has already been released on bail by this Court and on facts case of applicants is at par with him as only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons.

20. Further, applicant No. 1 is however, having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and applicant no. 2 is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, applicants are in jail since 21.6.2024 i.e. for last seven months.

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

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

23. Let the applicants-Awadhesh Nishad and Deenanath Nishad, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade their from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

24. 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 applicants.

25. 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 :- 22.1.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad