High Court · 2025

3. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

4. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application No. 865 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2024 under Sections 3(5), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station - Rampur Mathura District- Sitapur.

5. While pressing the present appeal, challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the application of the appellant seeking bail was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, it is stated that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

6. It is further stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR and the statement of the injured namely Surendra Kumar, indicates that on account of some property dispute, which was settled and in terms of said settlement Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the appellant on 20.01.2025 to Mr. Shrawan to vacate the land in issue and on account of said condition the appellant became annoyed and on 07.10.2024, on which date the settlement was arrived between the parties, the appellant assaulted the injured Surendra Kumar over his head and neck by Banka. Thus, it is apparent that incident occurred without pre-mediation of mind.

7. It is further submitted that on pointing out of the appellant, weapon used in the crime, as indicated in the FIR i.e. Banka, was recovered and the same has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, but till date no report has been received in this regard.

8. Moreover, the recovery memo indicates that on the recovered Banka no blood stain was found as this fact has not been mentioned in the recovery memo.

9. It is further submitted that according to the medical opinion, the injured received two injuries; one abrasion and another incised wound over scalp, which is simple in nature as would appear from the supplementary report, annexed as Annexure No.6, which reads as under:- "Supplementary Report of M.L.C. done on Date 7.10.2024 at 6.25 PM for injury no.1. Opinion for injury no.1 As given by Radiologist of District hospital Dr. Indra Singh No any bony lesion or fracture is seen on skull bones. On the basis of expert opinion injury no.1 is simple in nature. Injury is produced by sharp edge weapon. Chikitsa Adhikari, Samudayik Swasthya Kendra Rampur Mathura Sitapur. 4.11.2024."

10. The aforesaid has not been refuted. However, it is stated that as per CT SCAN report referred at page 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State on account of blow of Banka by the appellant, left half of occipital bone was got fractured.

11. In response, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that CT SCAN was not advised by the Government doctor who submitted its supplementary report indicating therein that this injury was simple in nature and it appears that injured on his own get his CT SCAN and this report prima-facie appears to be obtained report and accordingly at this stage of the proceedings the reliance is liable to be placed on the opinion of the government doctor concerned.

12. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of the Doctor the injury was caused by sharp edged object and the case of the prosecution is that the appellant assaulted the injured Surendra Kumar in the market and in this view of the matter, it can also be presumed that injured fell down on some sharp edged object and therefore, sustained injury and taking benefit of the injury sustained, the appellant has been implicated in the present case so as to get the possession of the land in issue as the injured was Mediator with regard to the land purchased by Roop Rani wife of Rambilas, which was in possession of Shrawan, which could only be vacated after receiving of Rs. 50,000/- and in relation to which settlement was arrived on 07.10.2024 which is also the date of incident.

13. It is further stated that there is no independent witness to support the story of prosecution though as per the story of the prosecution the injured was caused injury by the appellant in the open market.

14. It is further stated that If the prosecution story and statement of injured, are taken on its face value, the case would fall under Section 324 IPC.

15. Further submission is that the criminal history of two cases of the appellant, has been explained in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit.

16. He further submitted that taking note of aforesaid as also that the appellant is in jail since 09.10.2024 and also that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.

17. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

18. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the witnesses as well as other relevant documents and injury report, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

19. Order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application No. 865 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2024 under Sections 3(5), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station - Rampur Mathura District- Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

20. Let appellant, Siyaram, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

21. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

4. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application No. 865 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2024 under Sections 3(5), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station - Rampur Mathura District- Sitapur.

5. While pressing the present appeal, challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the application of the appellant seeking bail was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur, it is stated that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

6. It is further stated that a conjoint reading of the FIR and the statement of the injured namely Surendra Kumar, indicates that on account of some property dispute, which was settled and in terms of said settlement Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the appellant on 20.01.2025 to Mr. Shrawan to vacate the land in issue and on account of said condition the appellant became annoyed and on 07.10.2024, on which date the settlement was arrived between the parties, the appellant assaulted the injured Surendra Kumar over his head and neck by Banka. Thus, it is apparent that incident occurred without pre-mediation of mind.

7. It is further submitted that on pointing out of the appellant, weapon used in the crime, as indicated in the FIR i.e. Banka, was recovered and the same has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, but till date no report has been received in this regard.

8. Moreover, the recovery memo indicates that on the recovered Banka no blood stain was found as this fact has not been mentioned in the recovery memo.

9. It is further submitted that according to the medical opinion, the injured received two injuries; one abrasion and another incised wound over scalp, which is simple in nature as would appear from the supplementary report, annexed as Annexure No.6, which reads as under:- "Supplementary Report of M.L.C. done on Date 7.10.2024 at 6.25 PM for injury no.1. Opinion for injury no.1 As given by Radiologist of District hospital Dr. Indra Singh No any bony lesion or fracture is seen on skull bones. On the basis of expert opinion injury no.1 is simple in nature. Injury is produced by sharp edge weapon. Chikitsa Adhikari, Samudayik Swasthya Kendra Rampur Mathura Sitapur. 4.11.2024."

10. The aforesaid has not been refuted. However, it is stated that as per CT SCAN report referred at page 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State on account of blow of Banka by the appellant, left half of occipital bone was got fractured.

11. In response, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that CT SCAN was not advised by the Government doctor who submitted its supplementary report indicating therein that this injury was simple in nature and it appears that injured on his own get his CT SCAN and this report prima-facie appears to be obtained report and accordingly at this stage of the proceedings the reliance is liable to be placed on the opinion of the government doctor concerned.

12. It is further submitted that as per the opinion of the Doctor the injury was caused by sharp edged object and the case of the prosecution is that the appellant assaulted the injured Surendra Kumar in the market and in this view of the matter, it can also be presumed that injured fell down on some sharp edged object and therefore, sustained injury and taking benefit of the injury sustained, the appellant has been implicated in the present case so as to get the possession of the land in issue as the injured was Mediator with regard to the land purchased by Roop Rani wife of Rambilas, which was in possession of Shrawan, which could only be vacated after receiving of Rs. 50,000/- and in relation to which settlement was arrived on 07.10.2024 which is also the date of incident.

13. It is further stated that there is no independent witness to support the story of prosecution though as per the story of the prosecution the injured was caused injury by the appellant in the open market.

14. It is further stated that If the prosecution story and statement of injured, are taken on its face value, the case would fall under Section 324 IPC.

15. Further submission is that the criminal history of two cases of the appellant, has been explained in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit.

16. He further submitted that taking note of aforesaid as also that the appellant is in jail since 09.10.2024 and also that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.

17. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

18. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the witnesses as well as other relevant documents and injury report, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

19. Order dated 04.01.2025 whereby the trial court rejected the bail application of the appellant registered as Bail Application No. 865 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2024 under Sections 3(5), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 352 BNS, Police Station - Rampur Mathura District- Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

20. Let appellant, Siyaram, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

21. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench