High Court · 2025

projectile of the firearm'.

7. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. he stated that after lodging of the F.I.R. he acquired knowledge of involvement of some other persons also in commission of the offence. After reiterating the F.I.R. version, the informant further stated that when he was going towards the co-accused Yashwant Yadav's village searching for his uncle, on the way he saw a crowd and upon stopping he found the dead- body of his uncle lying beneath his motorcycle. The Police had reached the spot. The informant stated that his uncle had been killed by Sunil, Yashwant, Dilip, Ravi Yadav and Anoop Yadav (the applicant), as they were not in a position to refund the money taken from him and they were threatening the informant's uncle for the past few days that he should not insult them by demanding repayment of amount repetitively. The informant also stated that all five persons had abused his uncle on a road near his uncle's house. His uncle had stated that he will recover the amount in any situation and he would come to their house to recover the money. Several persons had mediated and tried to resolve the dispute. The informant did not know as to when his uncle went to the accused persons' village. He got information of the incident in the morning and he went to the Police Station, but in a hurry he lodged the F.I.R. against Sunil Yadav and Yashwant Yadav only, whereas all five persons were involved in commission of the offence.

8. The deceased person's driver Sonu Gautam also supported the F.I.R. version.

9. The Police claims that all five persons were intercepted while they were standing on a service lane near Maharua Turn. One person escaped in a White Baleno Car. Other four persons, including the applicant, were arrested. Rs. 900.00 are said to have been recovered from the co-accused Yashwant Yadav. A pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from co-accused Sunil, a chopper was recovered from the applicant Anup and Rs.

1070.00 are said to have been recovered from Ravi Yadav. The i-20 car bearing registration No. UP-45-AQ-5510 was taken into custody.

10. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. A chopper is claimed to have been recovered from the applicant, but the postmortem examination report mentions only three lacerated wounds and abrasion with contusion and no incised wound has been reported on the dead body. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Yashwant Yadav and Ravi Yadav have already been granted bail by this court by means of orders dated 16.04.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9886 of 2024 and 9562 of 2024 respectively.

11. The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that as per call detail records the applicant had as many as 13 conversations with the co-accused Sunil Yadav on the date of the incident.

12. In reply to the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no conversation took place between the deceased and the applicant.

19. Apparently, no conversation took place between the deceased and any of the accused persons after 18:05 p.m. As per the F.I.R., the deceased was alive at least till 11:43 p.m., when he had made a phone call to the informant.

13. In his cross-examination, the P.W-1 (the informant) stated that after he had lodged the F.I.R. against Yashwant Yadav and Sunil Yadav, he got information about involvement of other accused persons within half an hour since lodging of the F.I.R. This information was not given to him by any person, but he acquired this information by himself. He stated that the deceased did not possess any license for lending money. He further stated that the accused persons had not repaid any amount to the deceased.

14. The widow of the deceased has been examined as P.W-3 and she stated that the accused persons had borrowed more than Rs. 50 lacs from her husband and they were not refunding the money. They had given a cheque for an amount exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, but they had asked her husband not to present the cheque in the Bank. The cheque was presented in the Bank and it was dishonored. She stated that she has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

15. In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she could not tell the exact amount lent by her husband to the accused persons and she could not even tell any other particulars regarding the amount lent.

16. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available before the Court at this stage is that the F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar on 06.07.2024 at about 07:10 AM. It is strange that the inquest proceedings also started precisely at the same time in village Sanghia Narayanpur, which is about 7 KM away from the Police Station. The informant has stated in the F.I.R. that his Uncle had gone out of the village at 11:00 p.m. and he had made a telephone call to him at 11:43 p.m. and had told that he was going to the co-accused Yashwant Yadav's house and the informant should stay awake in case something happens. In the morning the call made to the Uncle could not get through and when the informant made a phone call to the co-accused Yashwant, he told that he had gone to Kanpur taking a bus. When the informant asked him to make enquiries from his brother, he stated that he was also away from his home since night. Merely from the aforesaid circumstances, the informant drew an inference that his uncle had been killed by these persons. The F.I.R. does not make any mention of the fact that the informant's uncle has in fact died and that he had come to know about death of his uncle and the source, manner and time of acquiring this information.

17. Without making any further observations, which may affect the outcome of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Anoop @ Ram Anuj Yadav 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

projectile of the firearm'.

7. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. he stated that after lodging of the F.I.R. he acquired knowledge of involvement of some other persons also in commission of the offence. After reiterating the F.I.R. version, the informant further stated that when he was going towards the co-accused Yashwant Yadav's village searching for his uncle, on the way he saw a crowd and upon stopping he found the dead- body of his uncle lying beneath his motorcycle. The Police had reached the spot. The informant stated that his uncle had been killed by Sunil, Yashwant, Dilip, Ravi Yadav and Anoop Yadav (the applicant), as they were not in a position to refund the money taken from him and they were threatening the informant's uncle for the past few days that he should not insult them by demanding repayment of amount repetitively. The informant also stated that all five persons had abused his uncle on a road near his uncle's house. His uncle had stated that he will recover the amount in any situation and he would come to their house to recover the money. Several persons had mediated and tried to resolve the dispute. The informant did not know as to when his uncle went to the accused persons' village. He got information of the incident in the morning and he went to the Police Station, but in a hurry he lodged the F.I.R. against Sunil Yadav and Yashwant Yadav only, whereas all five persons were involved in commission of the offence.

8. The deceased person's driver Sonu Gautam also supported the F.I.R. version.

9. The Police claims that all five persons were intercepted while they were standing on a service lane near Maharua Turn. One person escaped in a White Baleno Car. Other four persons, including the applicant, were arrested. Rs. 900.00 are said to have been recovered from the co-accused Yashwant Yadav. A pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from co-accused Sunil, a chopper was recovered from the applicant Anup and Rs.

1070.00 are said to have been recovered from Ravi Yadav. The i-20 car bearing registration No. UP-45-AQ-5510 was taken into custody.

10. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. A chopper is claimed to have been recovered from the applicant, but the postmortem examination report mentions only three lacerated wounds and abrasion with contusion and no incised wound has been reported on the dead body. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Yashwant Yadav and Ravi Yadav have already been granted bail by this court by means of orders dated 16.04.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9886 of 2024 and 9562 of 2024 respectively.

11. The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that as per call detail records the applicant had as many as 13 conversations with the co-accused Sunil Yadav on the date of the incident.

12. In reply to the aforesaid submission the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no conversation took place between the deceased and the applicant.

19. Apparently, no conversation took place between the deceased and any of the accused persons after 18:05 p.m. As per the F.I.R., the deceased was alive at least till 11:43 p.m., when he had made a phone call to the informant.

13. In his cross-examination, the P.W-1 (the informant) stated that after he had lodged the F.I.R. against Yashwant Yadav and Sunil Yadav, he got information about involvement of other accused persons within half an hour since lodging of the F.I.R. This information was not given to him by any person, but he acquired this information by himself. He stated that the deceased did not possess any license for lending money. He further stated that the accused persons had not repaid any amount to the deceased.

14. The widow of the deceased has been examined as P.W-3 and she stated that the accused persons had borrowed more than Rs. 50 lacs from her husband and they were not refunding the money. They had given a cheque for an amount exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, but they had asked her husband not to present the cheque in the Bank. The cheque was presented in the Bank and it was dishonored. She stated that she has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

15. In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she could not tell the exact amount lent by her husband to the accused persons and she could not even tell any other particulars regarding the amount lent.

16. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available before the Court at this stage is that the F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar on 06.07.2024 at about 07:10 AM. It is strange that the inquest proceedings also started precisely at the same time in village Sanghia Narayanpur, which is about 7 KM away from the Police Station. The informant has stated in the F.I.R. that his Uncle had gone out of the village at 11:00 p.m. and he had made a telephone call to him at 11:43 p.m. and had told that he was going to the co-accused Yashwant Yadav's house and the informant should stay awake in case something happens. In the morning the call made to the Uncle could not get through and when the informant made a phone call to the co-accused Yashwant, he told that he had gone to Kanpur taking a bus. When the informant asked him to make enquiries from his brother, he stated that he was also away from his home since night. Merely from the aforesaid circumstances, the informant drew an inference that his uncle had been killed by these persons. The F.I.R. does not make any mention of the fact that the informant's uncle has in fact died and that he had come to know about death of his uncle and the source, manner and time of acquiring this information.

17. Without making any further observations, which may affect the outcome of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant-Anoop @ Ram Anuj Yadav 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench