High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 05.02.2024 in Case Crime No.21 of 2024 under Section 304 of IPC, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the present applicant is the sole accused. The allegation against the present applicant is that on account of property dispute, he killed his own father attacking on his head through wooden stick/ bamboo pane (lakdi ka mogra). The informant is a sister of the present applicant who was present in the home at the time of incident.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 29.01.2025 showing Annexure No.1, which is a statement of PW-1 i.e. complainant, wherein she deposed before the learned trial court that she had not seen the incident in her own eyes. She had not levelled any allegation against her brother, the applicant. She lodged FIR on the ill advice of the villagers, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story.

5. Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of an eye witness - Sodar son of Lalta Prasad but he is not an eye witness in a real sense inasmuch as he has stated in his statement that he came to know about the alleged incident from reliable sources, therefore, as per learned counsel he is not an eye witness. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Chargesheet has been filed in this case and he undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application by submitting that the weapon used to commit offence has been recovered on his pointing out. However, he could not disputed that fact that the complainant/ informant has not supported the prosecution story.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that on account of property dispute, he killed his own father attacking on his head through wooden stick/ bamboo pane (lakdi ka mogra) and the informant/ complainant is a sister of the present applicant who in her statement deposed that she had not seen the incident in her own eyes and she has not supported the prosecution story; Sodar - an eye witness in his statement stated that he came to know about the alleged incident from reliable sources, therefore, he is not an eye witness in a real sense; chargesheet has been filed and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Akshay Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime 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:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

10. Before parting with, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provision of Section 309 CrPC/ 346 BNSS fixing short date, if possible on day to day basis without giving any admissible adjournment to any of the parties. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 05.02.2024 in Case Crime No.21 of 2024 under Section 304 of IPC, Police Station Malhipur, District Shravasti.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the present applicant is the sole accused. The allegation against the present applicant is that on account of property dispute, he killed his own father attacking on his head through wooden stick/ bamboo pane (lakdi ka mogra). The informant is a sister of the present applicant who was present in the home at the time of incident.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 29.01.2025 showing Annexure No.1, which is a statement of PW-1 i.e. complainant, wherein she deposed before the learned trial court that she had not seen the incident in her own eyes. She had not levelled any allegation against her brother, the applicant. She lodged FIR on the ill advice of the villagers, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story.

5. Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of an eye witness - Sodar son of Lalta Prasad but he is not an eye witness in a real sense inasmuch as he has stated in his statement that he came to know about the alleged incident from reliable sources, therefore, as per learned counsel he is not an eye witness. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Chargesheet has been filed in this case and he undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application by submitting that the weapon used to commit offence has been recovered on his pointing out. However, he could not disputed that fact that the complainant/ informant has not supported the prosecution story.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that on account of property dispute, he killed his own father attacking on his head through wooden stick/ bamboo pane (lakdi ka mogra) and the informant/ complainant is a sister of the present applicant who in her statement deposed that she had not seen the incident in her own eyes and she has not supported the prosecution story; Sodar - an eye witness in his statement stated that he came to know about the alleged incident from reliable sources, therefore, he is not an eye witness in a real sense; chargesheet has been filed and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Akshay Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime 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:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

10. Before parting with, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provision of Section 309 CrPC/ 346 BNSS fixing short date, if possible on day to day basis without giving any admissible adjournment to any of the parties. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench