High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 520 of 2024, under Sections 103(I) BNS, Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 1.10.2024 against co- accused Aram and Sanjesh and as per FIR nominated co-accused persons earlier threatened the deceased and therefore, it appears they have committed his murder.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that applicant is the son in law of the brother of the deceased and informant and totally on the basis of false allegation during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that however informant did not disclose his name in the FIR but when his statement was recorded during investigation then at the time of questions asked by the Investigating Officer, he disclosed that applicant was also present at spot alongwith his father in law i.e. co-accused Satypal and thereafter statement of Jamadar Singh, uncle of the father in law of the applicant was recorded and then he started claiming himself to be an eye-witness and stated that applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter, his father in law i.e. co-accused Satyapal committed his murder and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently Jamadar Singh has been introduced as an eyewitness.

6. He further submitted that if Jamadar Singh would have witnessed the real incident then he must disclosed this fact to his nephew i.e. informant and he must interfered while deceased was being murdered and this fact clearly suggests that he is not an eye witness.

7. He further submitted that actually due to property dispute with intention to grab the property of the applicant he has been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 1.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Jamadar Singh, uncle of the deceased is an eye witness and he specifically stated in his statement recorded during investigation that applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter his father in law i.e. another brother of the deceased Satyapal committed his murder but could not dispute the fact that Jamadar Singh is the real uncle of the deceased and informant and earlier he did not disclose this fact to any one including informant.

10. Learned AGA however further submitted that during investigation Vikram @ Vikki, nephew of the deceased also claimed himself to be an eyewitness and he also reiterated the version of Jamadar Singh but he fairly conceded that he was also close relative of the informant and his statement was recorded after the statement of witness Jamadar Singh and except the statement of Jamadar Singh and Vikram @ Vikki, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

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

12. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation through the statement of Jamadar Singh, uncle of the deceased, he has been made accused in the present matter.

13. From the perusal of the record, it also reflects that after the statement of Jamadar Singh, Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of one Vikram@Vikki and he also reiterated the story narrated by the witness Jamadar Singh and as per both the witnesses, applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter his father in law, co-accused Satyapal Singh who is also another brother of the deceased committed his murder but record also suggests that both the witnesses Jamadar Singh and Vikram @ Vikki were close relatives of the informant and considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually they did not witness the real incident and subsequently they have been introduced as witnesses as if they would have witnessed the real incident then they must have disclosed this fact to the informant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

14. Further, except the statement of Jamadar Singh and Vikram and Vikki, there is no other evidence against the applicant is on record.

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 1.10.2024.

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

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

18. Let the applicant-Devendra, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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. ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Ankita

1. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 520 of 2024, under Sections 103(I) BNS, Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 1.10.2024 against co- accused Aram and Sanjesh and as per FIR nominated co-accused persons earlier threatened the deceased and therefore, it appears they have committed his murder.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that applicant is the son in law of the brother of the deceased and informant and totally on the basis of false allegation during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that however informant did not disclose his name in the FIR but when his statement was recorded during investigation then at the time of questions asked by the Investigating Officer, he disclosed that applicant was also present at spot alongwith his father in law i.e. co-accused Satypal and thereafter statement of Jamadar Singh, uncle of the father in law of the applicant was recorded and then he started claiming himself to be an eye-witness and stated that applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter, his father in law i.e. co-accused Satyapal committed his murder and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently Jamadar Singh has been introduced as an eyewitness.

6. He further submitted that if Jamadar Singh would have witnessed the real incident then he must disclosed this fact to his nephew i.e. informant and he must interfered while deceased was being murdered and this fact clearly suggests that he is not an eye witness.

7. He further submitted that actually due to property dispute with intention to grab the property of the applicant he has been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 1.10.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Jamadar Singh, uncle of the deceased is an eye witness and he specifically stated in his statement recorded during investigation that applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter his father in law i.e. another brother of the deceased Satyapal committed his murder but could not dispute the fact that Jamadar Singh is the real uncle of the deceased and informant and earlier he did not disclose this fact to any one including informant.

10. Learned AGA however further submitted that during investigation Vikram @ Vikki, nephew of the deceased also claimed himself to be an eyewitness and he also reiterated the version of Jamadar Singh but he fairly conceded that he was also close relative of the informant and his statement was recorded after the statement of witness Jamadar Singh and except the statement of Jamadar Singh and Vikram @ Vikki, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

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

12. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation through the statement of Jamadar Singh, uncle of the deceased, he has been made accused in the present matter.

13. From the perusal of the record, it also reflects that after the statement of Jamadar Singh, Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of one Vikram@Vikki and he also reiterated the story narrated by the witness Jamadar Singh and as per both the witnesses, applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter his father in law, co-accused Satyapal Singh who is also another brother of the deceased committed his murder but record also suggests that both the witnesses Jamadar Singh and Vikram @ Vikki were close relatives of the informant and considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually they did not witness the real incident and subsequently they have been introduced as witnesses as if they would have witnessed the real incident then they must have disclosed this fact to the informant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

14. Further, except the statement of Jamadar Singh and Vikram and Vikki, there is no other evidence against the applicant is on record.

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 1.10.2024.

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

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

18. Let the applicant-Devendra, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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. ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Ankita