High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Amar Nath Maurya on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 442 of 2020, under Sections- 306 I.P.C. and 67A Information Technology Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhaya.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the F.I.R, certain video clips of the daughter of the informant were made by the accused named in the F.I.R and she was also humiliated at the place of crime, which is the old house of the informant and thereafter, the daughter of the informant committed suicide. The fact that the daughter of the informant committed suicide is evident from the post-mortem report according to which, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant neither made the video clip nor the same was sent/viraled by him to mobile phone bearing No. 84000341485 of Surjeet (brother of deceased). It is further stated that this video clip was sent from mobile phone bearing No. 7355374260 as appears from the statement of informant as also the statement of Surjeet.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Investigating OfÏcer played the video clip before the informant, who after examining the same, specifically stated the names of the persons present at the place of crime. In his statement, he has named the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in this view of the matter, it is evident, prima facie, that the video clip was neither made nor viraled by the applicant because if he made the video clips then he would himself not have been present there in that video, which goes to show that someone else had made the video clips and thereafter sent on the phone of the brother of deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that after investigation, it came into light that the phone bearing No. 7355374260 belongs to one Dileep. In this view of the matter, it appears that the video clips were made by Dileep and he viraled the same. He further submitted that in fact the applicant was only present at the place of crime and he was not involved in the same. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the informant, on the basis of the voice recorded in video clips, could not identify the applicant and others.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused Balram Maurya, whose name was also in the statement and one Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the scene of crime, have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 and 27.07.2021, passed in Bail No. 4897 of 2021 and Bail No. 6354 of 2020 respectively. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 306 I.P.C is made out against the applicant as there is no averment in the FIR in this regard or in the statement of witnesses which would show that the applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 15.03.2021. The prayer is to allow the bail application and release the applicant on bail.

7. It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the case particularly that co-accused Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the place of crime and is visible in video clip, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail as also the fact that co- accused Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the place of crime and is visible in video clip, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Amar Nath Maurya involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail. (2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court. (3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad. (5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (6) The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

11. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Amar Nath Maurya on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 442 of 2020, under Sections- 306 I.P.C. and 67A Information Technology Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhaya.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the F.I.R, certain video clips of the daughter of the informant were made by the accused named in the F.I.R and she was also humiliated at the place of crime, which is the old house of the informant and thereafter, the daughter of the informant committed suicide. The fact that the daughter of the informant committed suicide is evident from the post-mortem report according to which, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant neither made the video clip nor the same was sent/viraled by him to mobile phone bearing No. 84000341485 of Surjeet (brother of deceased). It is further stated that this video clip was sent from mobile phone bearing No. 7355374260 as appears from the statement of informant as also the statement of Surjeet.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Investigating OfÏcer played the video clip before the informant, who after examining the same, specifically stated the names of the persons present at the place of crime. In his statement, he has named the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in this view of the matter, it is evident, prima facie, that the video clip was neither made nor viraled by the applicant because if he made the video clips then he would himself not have been present there in that video, which goes to show that someone else had made the video clips and thereafter sent on the phone of the brother of deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that after investigation, it came into light that the phone bearing No. 7355374260 belongs to one Dileep. In this view of the matter, it appears that the video clips were made by Dileep and he viraled the same. He further submitted that in fact the applicant was only present at the place of crime and he was not involved in the same. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the informant, on the basis of the voice recorded in video clips, could not identify the applicant and others.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that co-accused Balram Maurya, whose name was also in the statement and one Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the scene of crime, have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 and 27.07.2021, passed in Bail No. 4897 of 2021 and Bail No. 6354 of 2020 respectively. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 306 I.P.C is made out against the applicant as there is no averment in the FIR in this regard or in the statement of witnesses which would show that the applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 15.03.2021. The prayer is to allow the bail application and release the applicant on bail.

7. It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the case particularly that co-accused Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the place of crime and is visible in video clip, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail as also the fact that co- accused Sonu Yadav, who was also present at the place of crime and is visible in video clip, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Amar Nath Maurya involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail. (2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court. (3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad. (5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (6) The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

11. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 DiVYa DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench