High Court · 2025

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the informant's brother Dinesh Pal Singh while returning from the shop of Shrikant after taking sugar etc at about 9.00a.m. on 12.11.2024, in the way, Arunesh alias Tinku Singh of the village surrounded him in front of his door and while abusing his mother and sister, Abhishek Singh (present applicant), Rajeshwar Pal Singh son of Khurram Singh and others attacked him with knives and spade with the intention to kill. Arunesh alias Tinku and present applicant cut both the legs of complainant's brother with a spade. Rajeshwar Singh stabbed him due to which complainant's brother fell down bleeding on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, the complainant and many other villagers reached the spot. The accused persons while threatening to kill fled from the spot. The police had taken the injured to District Hospital for treatment.

4.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the court towards medical prescription of District Hospital, Hardoi (Annexure No.5) where medico legal examination of the victim injured was conducted on 12.11.2024, in which there is a clear finding of the doctor that no head injury has been caused to the injured. It contradicts ante mortem injuries found in the post mortem report. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the injured Dinesh Pal Singh was brought to the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi at 11.40a.m. on 12.11.2024. A perusal of the injury report contained in Annexure No.2 to the bail application shows that the injured has suffered six injuries. Injuries suffered by Dinesh Pal Singh as shown in Annexure No.2 to the bail application are extracted below : " 1. Abrasion - 4x5 cm Left side of face 2. Lacerated wound- 4×0.4 cm x skin deep on Lateral aspect of Rt. Arm 3. Lacerated wound- 4x0.3 cm skin deep medical aspect of left forearm 4. Lacerated wound- 2x0.3 cm skin deep lateral aspect of Rt leg

5. Crush Injury Blood present - 6x6 cm x skin deep Lt. ankle 6. Crush Injury Blood present - 6x6 cm x skin deep Rt. Ankle" The complainant in his first statement has reiterated the prosecution story in the first information report. The injured in his statement has made general allegation on the co-accused Arunesh alias Tinku Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and the present applicant of causing injury to him. It is submitted that the injured was brought by brother of the informant Pawan Singh to the District Hospital, Hardoi on 12.11.2024 at 2.02a.m. The injury report contained in Annexure No.5 shows that there was no head injury suffered by the injured. It is also submitted that no investigation regarding treatment of the injured in District Hospital, Hardoi has been conducted by the investigating officer. In the post mortem, 13 ante mortem injuries have been found on the body of the injured which makes the story of prosecution doubtful. Cause of death according to post mortem report is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. For ready reference, the injuries suffered by the deceased as shown in post mortem report are reproduced below : "1. Contusion 07 cm x 04 cm,, present on right side of head, just above the right ear.

2. Contusion 06 cm x 04 cm, present on left side of head, just above the left ear.

3. Abraded contusion 06 cm x 03 cm, present on left side of face, just lateral to left eye.

4. Lacerated wound 05 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep, present on lateral aspect of left forearm, 04 cm below the left elbow joint.

5. Lacerated wound 06 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep, present on right forearm, 06 cm below the top of right shoulder.

6. Contusion 06 cm c 04 cm, present on right buttock.

7. Stitched wound 04 cm long, along with 03 stitches present on front of right leg, 06 cm above the right ankle joint.

8. Stitched wound 12 cm long, along with 11 stitches, present on lateral aspect of right ankle joint.

9. Stitched wound 15 cm long, along with 17 stitches, present on front of left leg, just above the left ankle joint, underlying both bones are fractured.

10. Abraded contusion 06 cm x 04 cm, present on right side upper back at right scapular region.

11. Contusion 12 cm x 06 cm, present on back of neck, just above the spine of C-7, underlying body of C-4, C-5 & C-6 vertebrae are fractured.

12. Contusion 22cm x 15 cm, present on upper back, just below the spine of C-7, underlying body of T-2 & T-3 vertebrae are fractured.

13. Contusion 6cm x 04 cm, present on top of right shoulder." It is submitted that the villagers, namely Rishi Pal Singh, Akhilesh Singh, Vishnu Pal Singh, Rajesh Singh, Subodh Singh, Parul Singh and Krishnpal Singh have stated under section 180 BNSS that the applicant and Rajeshwar Singh have been falsely implicated. They were not present in the village. Rajeshwar Singh is 80 years old and unable to move. The other witnesses/independent witnesses namely Arun Kumar Singh, Anand Kumar singh, Vinay Singh and Himanshu Ranjan Singh while giving statement under section 180 BNSS have stated that Rajeshwar Singh and Twinkle have been falsely implicated. Thereafter on the basis of the statement under Section 180 BNSS of Dheeraj Singh, Deepak Kumar Singh, Shaurabh Singh and Pushpendra Pratap Singh, names of Rajeshwar Singh and Twinkle Singh were dropped while filing charge sheet. It is submitted that the applicant was not present at the spot. He was engaged in his Tilak ceremony which was scheduled on 26.2.2025. It is submitted that the prosecution story becomes doubtful as the medico legal examination report of the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi shows no injury of spade or knife on the body of the deceased. Six injuries have been shown in the initial medico legal examination of the injured upon which no investigation has been conducted and later on in the post mortem, the injuries have increased to 13 on the body of the deceased. There is no explanation in the prosecution case about the same.There are contradictory statements of a number of prosecution witnesses regarding participation of the accused applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused applicant has passed B.A. III examination and his marriage was scheduled to be held on 3.3.2025. There was no occasion for the applicant to have indulged in such a crime. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, statement of the injured has not been believed by the investigating officer and the name of Rajeshwar Singh has been dropped, a number of independent witnesses/villagers have denied the complainant's and injured version of the prosecution story, no investigation has been conducted on the injury report of Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi, charge sheet has been filed, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Abhishek Singh, involved in Case Crime No.343 of 2024 under sections 103(1), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Behta Gokul, district Hardoi 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

7.The application is allowed accordingly.

8.Before parting, this court is pained to observe that the investigating officer of in the present case has not made any investigation as regards injury report of Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi wherein six injuries have been shown on the body of the injured Dinesh Pal Singh. However, in the post mortem report, total 13 injuries have been found. It is not understandable as to how the injuries were increased at the time of post mortem of the deceased Dinesh Pal Singh. No investigation at all has been conducted by the investigating officer on this issue. Be that as it may, this court finds that present case discloses dismal level of investigation and tainted action on the part of the investigating agency. The facts above noted indicate that although the injured Dinesh Pal Singh has stated in his statement that the accused Arunesh alias Tinku Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and Abhishek Singh have caused injuries to him with spade with an intent to kill and also the fact that all the three accused persons including Rajeshwar Singh who has been alleged to have caused knife injury to the deceased, his name has been dropped while filing charge sheet. How the fatal injuries have been caused on the person of the deceased as shown in the post mortem report, although in the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi, only six injuries, not serious in nature, were found. The investigating officer has noted that the involvement of Rajeshwar Singh, co-accused who is named in the first information report is found false. Such a finding has been recorded by the investigating officer on the basis of the statement of the villagers as stated by him today in the court, ignoring the injuries as also the statement of the injured Dinesh Pal Singh. There appears no investigation at all as regards medical prescription dated 12.11.2024 of District Hospital, Hardoi (Annexure No.5 to the bail application) wherein no head injury was found.

9.The facts and circumstances also indicate that there is no supervision/superintendence at the level of Circle Officer who approves the charge sheet before submitting it to the court.

10.From the above, this Court finds that it would be appropriate that an enquiry be held at the level of Superintendent of Police.

11.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow as also the Principal Secretary (Home), civil Secretariat, Lucknow so that he is apprised of the poor quality of investigation being conducted under his guard.

12.Let copy of the order be forwarded through Senior Registrar. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kkb/ KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the informant's brother Dinesh Pal Singh while returning from the shop of Shrikant after taking sugar etc at about 9.00a.m. on 12.11.2024, in the way, Arunesh alias Tinku Singh of the village surrounded him in front of his door and while abusing his mother and sister, Abhishek Singh (present applicant), Rajeshwar Pal Singh son of Khurram Singh and others attacked him with knives and spade with the intention to kill. Arunesh alias Tinku and present applicant cut both the legs of complainant's brother with a spade. Rajeshwar Singh stabbed him due to which complainant's brother fell down bleeding on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, the complainant and many other villagers reached the spot. The accused persons while threatening to kill fled from the spot. The police had taken the injured to District Hospital for treatment.

4.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the court towards medical prescription of District Hospital, Hardoi (Annexure No.5) where medico legal examination of the victim injured was conducted on 12.11.2024, in which there is a clear finding of the doctor that no head injury has been caused to the injured. It contradicts ante mortem injuries found in the post mortem report. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the injured Dinesh Pal Singh was brought to the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi at 11.40a.m. on 12.11.2024. A perusal of the injury report contained in Annexure No.2 to the bail application shows that the injured has suffered six injuries. Injuries suffered by Dinesh Pal Singh as shown in Annexure No.2 to the bail application are extracted below : " 1. Abrasion - 4x5 cm Left side of face 2. Lacerated wound- 4×0.4 cm x skin deep on Lateral aspect of Rt. Arm 3. Lacerated wound- 4x0.3 cm skin deep medical aspect of left forearm 4. Lacerated wound- 2x0.3 cm skin deep lateral aspect of Rt leg

5. Crush Injury Blood present - 6x6 cm x skin deep Lt. ankle 6. Crush Injury Blood present - 6x6 cm x skin deep Rt. Ankle" The complainant in his first statement has reiterated the prosecution story in the first information report. The injured in his statement has made general allegation on the co-accused Arunesh alias Tinku Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and the present applicant of causing injury to him. It is submitted that the injured was brought by brother of the informant Pawan Singh to the District Hospital, Hardoi on 12.11.2024 at 2.02a.m. The injury report contained in Annexure No.5 shows that there was no head injury suffered by the injured. It is also submitted that no investigation regarding treatment of the injured in District Hospital, Hardoi has been conducted by the investigating officer. In the post mortem, 13 ante mortem injuries have been found on the body of the injured which makes the story of prosecution doubtful. Cause of death according to post mortem report is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. For ready reference, the injuries suffered by the deceased as shown in post mortem report are reproduced below : "1. Contusion 07 cm x 04 cm,, present on right side of head, just above the right ear.

2. Contusion 06 cm x 04 cm, present on left side of head, just above the left ear.

3. Abraded contusion 06 cm x 03 cm, present on left side of face, just lateral to left eye.

4. Lacerated wound 05 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep, present on lateral aspect of left forearm, 04 cm below the left elbow joint.

5. Lacerated wound 06 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep, present on right forearm, 06 cm below the top of right shoulder.

6. Contusion 06 cm c 04 cm, present on right buttock.

7. Stitched wound 04 cm long, along with 03 stitches present on front of right leg, 06 cm above the right ankle joint.

8. Stitched wound 12 cm long, along with 11 stitches, present on lateral aspect of right ankle joint.

9. Stitched wound 15 cm long, along with 17 stitches, present on front of left leg, just above the left ankle joint, underlying both bones are fractured.

10. Abraded contusion 06 cm x 04 cm, present on right side upper back at right scapular region.

11. Contusion 12 cm x 06 cm, present on back of neck, just above the spine of C-7, underlying body of C-4, C-5 & C-6 vertebrae are fractured.

12. Contusion 22cm x 15 cm, present on upper back, just below the spine of C-7, underlying body of T-2 & T-3 vertebrae are fractured.

13. Contusion 6cm x 04 cm, present on top of right shoulder." It is submitted that the villagers, namely Rishi Pal Singh, Akhilesh Singh, Vishnu Pal Singh, Rajesh Singh, Subodh Singh, Parul Singh and Krishnpal Singh have stated under section 180 BNSS that the applicant and Rajeshwar Singh have been falsely implicated. They were not present in the village. Rajeshwar Singh is 80 years old and unable to move. The other witnesses/independent witnesses namely Arun Kumar Singh, Anand Kumar singh, Vinay Singh and Himanshu Ranjan Singh while giving statement under section 180 BNSS have stated that Rajeshwar Singh and Twinkle have been falsely implicated. Thereafter on the basis of the statement under Section 180 BNSS of Dheeraj Singh, Deepak Kumar Singh, Shaurabh Singh and Pushpendra Pratap Singh, names of Rajeshwar Singh and Twinkle Singh were dropped while filing charge sheet. It is submitted that the applicant was not present at the spot. He was engaged in his Tilak ceremony which was scheduled on 26.2.2025. It is submitted that the prosecution story becomes doubtful as the medico legal examination report of the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi shows no injury of spade or knife on the body of the deceased. Six injuries have been shown in the initial medico legal examination of the injured upon which no investigation has been conducted and later on in the post mortem, the injuries have increased to 13 on the body of the deceased. There is no explanation in the prosecution case about the same.There are contradictory statements of a number of prosecution witnesses regarding participation of the accused applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused applicant has passed B.A. III examination and his marriage was scheduled to be held on 3.3.2025. There was no occasion for the applicant to have indulged in such a crime. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, statement of the injured has not been believed by the investigating officer and the name of Rajeshwar Singh has been dropped, a number of independent witnesses/villagers have denied the complainant's and injured version of the prosecution story, no investigation has been conducted on the injury report of Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi, charge sheet has been filed, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Abhishek Singh, involved in Case Crime No.343 of 2024 under sections 103(1), 118(1), 118(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Behta Gokul, district Hardoi 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

7.The application is allowed accordingly.

8.Before parting, this court is pained to observe that the investigating officer of in the present case has not made any investigation as regards injury report of Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi wherein six injuries have been shown on the body of the injured Dinesh Pal Singh. However, in the post mortem report, total 13 injuries have been found. It is not understandable as to how the injuries were increased at the time of post mortem of the deceased Dinesh Pal Singh. No investigation at all has been conducted by the investigating officer on this issue. Be that as it may, this court finds that present case discloses dismal level of investigation and tainted action on the part of the investigating agency. The facts above noted indicate that although the injured Dinesh Pal Singh has stated in his statement that the accused Arunesh alias Tinku Singh, Rajeshwar Singh and Abhishek Singh have caused injuries to him with spade with an intent to kill and also the fact that all the three accused persons including Rajeshwar Singh who has been alleged to have caused knife injury to the deceased, his name has been dropped while filing charge sheet. How the fatal injuries have been caused on the person of the deceased as shown in the post mortem report, although in the Community Health Centre, Todarpur, Hardoi, only six injuries, not serious in nature, were found. The investigating officer has noted that the involvement of Rajeshwar Singh, co-accused who is named in the first information report is found false. Such a finding has been recorded by the investigating officer on the basis of the statement of the villagers as stated by him today in the court, ignoring the injuries as also the statement of the injured Dinesh Pal Singh. There appears no investigation at all as regards medical prescription dated 12.11.2024 of District Hospital, Hardoi (Annexure No.5 to the bail application) wherein no head injury was found.

9.The facts and circumstances also indicate that there is no supervision/superintendence at the level of Circle Officer who approves the charge sheet before submitting it to the court.

10.From the above, this Court finds that it would be appropriate that an enquiry be held at the level of Superintendent of Police.

11.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow as also the Principal Secretary (Home), civil Secretariat, Lucknow so that he is apprised of the poor quality of investigation being conducted under his guard.

12.Let copy of the order be forwarded through Senior Registrar. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kkb/ KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench