High Court · 2025

2. Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned Advocate, filed his power on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.

3. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station- Kalinjar, District- Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.06.2024 against applicant and co-accused Raju and according to FIR, applicant is the devar of the informant and he along with co-accused Raju and his brother i.e. husband of the informant had gone to field on 15.06.2024 in the night and some dispute arose between them and thereafter applicant and co-accused Raju made assault upon the head of the husband of the informant through brick due to which, he sustained injuries and during treatment, died on 16.06.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the devar of the informant and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

7. She further submitted that however, informant stated that at the time of incident, she herself arrived at spot but it appear that she was not the eye-witness. She further submitted that when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then she also introduced her daughter and stated that she along with her daughter arrived at spot and thereafter both the accused ran away and, therefore, it appears that neither informant nor her daughter could see the real incident.

8. She further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer introduced Kuldeep and Sharda Prasad as eye-witnesses and however, they stated that due to brick thrown by applicant, deceased sustained injuries on his head but from their statements, it reflects that applicant was not having any intention to cause death of the deceased and from their statements, present case does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC.

9. She further submitted that from the post-mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained two injuries on his head, contusion and multiple abrasion, therefore, post-mortem of the deceased belies the version of the eye-witnesses and it reflects that only due to reason that applicant is the devar of the informant, he has been implicated in the present matter.

10. She further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but from the FIR of that case, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit, it could not be reflected that applicant was named in the FIR. She further submitted that even that case relates to minor offences.

11. She further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is eye-witness account and according to their statements, applicant caused brick injury to the deceased and due to head injury he died and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was not responsible for his death and considering the fact that applicant is real brother of the deceased, his bail application should not be allowed.

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

14. However, it reflects that applicant is the real brother of the deceased and as per allegation, he along with co-accused caused brick injury on his head and due to which, he died but from the statements of two eye-witnesses namely Kuldeep and Sharada Prasad, it reflects that applicant threw brick from the roof due to which, deceased sustained head injuries and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if story narrated by eye-witnesses is accepted then also present case does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case, according to learned AGA, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but as per learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was not accused in that case. Be that as it may, that case relates to minor offences.

16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2024 i.e. for last more than six 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- Raja Kushwaha 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.

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. KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 10.1.2025/KK Patel

2. Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned Advocate, filed his power on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.

3. Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station- Kalinjar, District- Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.06.2024 against applicant and co-accused Raju and according to FIR, applicant is the devar of the informant and he along with co-accused Raju and his brother i.e. husband of the informant had gone to field on 15.06.2024 in the night and some dispute arose between them and thereafter applicant and co-accused Raju made assault upon the head of the husband of the informant through brick due to which, he sustained injuries and during treatment, died on 16.06.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the devar of the informant and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter.

7. She further submitted that however, informant stated that at the time of incident, she herself arrived at spot but it appear that she was not the eye-witness. She further submitted that when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then she also introduced her daughter and stated that she along with her daughter arrived at spot and thereafter both the accused ran away and, therefore, it appears that neither informant nor her daughter could see the real incident.

8. She further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer introduced Kuldeep and Sharda Prasad as eye-witnesses and however, they stated that due to brick thrown by applicant, deceased sustained injuries on his head but from their statements, it reflects that applicant was not having any intention to cause death of the deceased and from their statements, present case does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC.

9. She further submitted that from the post-mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained two injuries on his head, contusion and multiple abrasion, therefore, post-mortem of the deceased belies the version of the eye-witnesses and it reflects that only due to reason that applicant is the devar of the informant, he has been implicated in the present matter.

10. She further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but from the FIR of that case, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit, it could not be reflected that applicant was named in the FIR. She further submitted that even that case relates to minor offences.

11. She further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is eye-witness account and according to their statements, applicant caused brick injury to the deceased and due to head injury he died and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was not responsible for his death and considering the fact that applicant is real brother of the deceased, his bail application should not be allowed.

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

14. However, it reflects that applicant is the real brother of the deceased and as per allegation, he along with co-accused caused brick injury on his head and due to which, he died but from the statements of two eye-witnesses namely Kuldeep and Sharada Prasad, it reflects that applicant threw brick from the roof due to which, deceased sustained head injuries and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if story narrated by eye-witnesses is accepted then also present case does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case, according to learned AGA, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but as per learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was not accused in that case. Be that as it may, that case relates to minor offences.

16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 26.06.2024 i.e. for last more than six 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- Raja Kushwaha 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.

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. KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 10.1.2025/KK Patel