State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Shashank Kumar and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsels for applicants, Sri Balendra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail applications have been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.148 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Pakri, District Ballia with the prayer to enlarge them on bail. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The informant Smt. Upasana Rai instituted the FIR at Police Station Pakri, District Ballia stating that her husband, who lives in the house of his maternal-grand-father (Nana) in village Jethwar had left from there on

25.9.2024 at about 06:00 p.m. and was going to village Sisotar by his motorcycle. Her husband stopped the motorcycle in the way for looking over the irrigation in the field. As he stopped the motorcycle there, four persons came on a motorcycle, whereby Amit Yadav, Raja Yadav and two unknown persons inquired about the said motorcycle and started hurling abuses at them and started beating up her husband and hitting him on his head with stones and one of them took out country-made pistol from his pocket and hit the husband with the said CMP rendering him unconscious. 2 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024

5. In the meantime, witnesses Bittu Rai and Tillu Rai reached there, as such, accused persons ran away threatening them. The husband of the informant was rushed to government hospital Sikandarpur from where he was referred to District Hospital, Ballia. He was further referred for higher center, whereby he was admitted in Prakash Hospital, Mau and is undergoing treatment there. As such, the FIR was instituted on 26.9.2024 at about 08:53 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Although he is named in the FIR, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. There are eight injuries shown on the body of the victim while injury nos. 1 to 4 were kept under observation and rest injuries were simple in nature, which were alleged to have been caused by hard and blunt object. The duration of injuries could not be ascertained.

8. The informant in her statement recorded U/s 180 BNSS has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. The said eye-witnesses have also reiterated the allegations made in the FIR who are the interested witness.

9. There is no particular act assigned to any accused person. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

10. The statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, who treated the injured person at Prakash Hospital and Trauma Centre, Mau, was recorded who stated that blood was oozing out from the nose of the injured person, but the applicant cannot be assigned the role of having caused the said injuries.

11. There is a criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant, which are as follows: (i) Case Crime No.36 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. In the said case, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by the ACJM-IInd, Ballia vide order dated 20.2.2023. 3 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024 (ii) Case Crime No.29 of 2023, U/s 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia. In the said case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the In- charge Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC-IIIrd, Ballia vide order dated 10.1.2025. (iii) Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia. In the said case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been expunged and no protest petition has been filed till date. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on the ground that the criminal history of the applicant regarding Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia has not been explained.

13. It is also argued by learned A.G.A. that as per the statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Sikandpur, the following injury was observed by him in the CT scan:- - Subtle displaced fracture in bilateral frontal process of maxilla - Right concha bullosa. - Deviation of nasal septum toward left side with bony spur. - Mucosal thickening in bilateral maxillary and sphenoid sinus on the right side. CONCLUSION:

14. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025 Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents. Non-disclosure of criminal history itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of bail. The Court directed: “We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/ sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily 4 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024 disclose in the 'SYNOPSIS' that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.”

15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history of the applicant regarding Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia has not been explained, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

17. 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. September 15, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Shashank Kumar and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsels for applicants, Sri Balendra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail applications have been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.148 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Pakri, District Ballia with the prayer to enlarge them on bail. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The informant Smt. Upasana Rai instituted the FIR at Police Station Pakri, District Ballia stating that her husband, who lives in the house of his maternal-grand-father (Nana) in village Jethwar had left from there on

25.9.2024 at about 06:00 p.m. and was going to village Sisotar by his motorcycle. Her husband stopped the motorcycle in the way for looking over the irrigation in the field. As he stopped the motorcycle there, four persons came on a motorcycle, whereby Amit Yadav, Raja Yadav and two unknown persons inquired about the said motorcycle and started hurling abuses at them and started beating up her husband and hitting him on his head with stones and one of them took out country-made pistol from his pocket and hit the husband with the said CMP rendering him unconscious. 2 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024

5. In the meantime, witnesses Bittu Rai and Tillu Rai reached there, as such, accused persons ran away threatening them. The husband of the informant was rushed to government hospital Sikandarpur from where he was referred to District Hospital, Ballia. He was further referred for higher center, whereby he was admitted in Prakash Hospital, Mau and is undergoing treatment there. As such, the FIR was instituted on 26.9.2024 at about 08:53 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Although he is named in the FIR, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. There are eight injuries shown on the body of the victim while injury nos. 1 to 4 were kept under observation and rest injuries were simple in nature, which were alleged to have been caused by hard and blunt object. The duration of injuries could not be ascertained.

8. The informant in her statement recorded U/s 180 BNSS has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. The said eye-witnesses have also reiterated the allegations made in the FIR who are the interested witness.

9. There is no particular act assigned to any accused person. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

10. The statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, who treated the injured person at Prakash Hospital and Trauma Centre, Mau, was recorded who stated that blood was oozing out from the nose of the injured person, but the applicant cannot be assigned the role of having caused the said injuries.

11. There is a criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant, which are as follows: (i) Case Crime No.36 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. In the said case, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by the ACJM-IInd, Ballia vide order dated 20.2.2023. 3 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024 (ii) Case Crime No.29 of 2023, U/s 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia. In the said case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the In- charge Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC-IIIrd, Ballia vide order dated 10.1.2025. (iii) Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia. In the said case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been expunged and no protest petition has been filed till date. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on the ground that the criminal history of the applicant regarding Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia has not been explained.

13. It is also argued by learned A.G.A. that as per the statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Sikandpur, the following injury was observed by him in the CT scan:- - Subtle displaced fracture in bilateral frontal process of maxilla - Right concha bullosa. - Deviation of nasal septum toward left side with bony spur. - Mucosal thickening in bilateral maxillary and sphenoid sinus on the right side. CONCLUSION:

14. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025 Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents. Non-disclosure of criminal history itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of bail. The Court directed: “We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/ sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily 4 BAIL No. 47226 of 2024 disclose in the 'SYNOPSIS' that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.”

15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history of the applicant regarding Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pakri, District Ballia has not been explained, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

17. 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. September 15, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad