High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajnish Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 01.02.2022 in in S.T.No.220 of 2022 case crime No.78 of 2021 under sections 498A, 323, 325, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Mohanganj, district Amethi. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant. The first bail application had been rejected vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9237 of 2022. The order dated 08.02.2024 reads as under:- "1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this bail application moved in S.T.No.220 of 2022 case crime No.78 of 2021 under sections 498A, 323, 325, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Mohanganj, district Amethi, and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 9.6.2009. On 16.3.2021, the accused persons were going to murder the victim by pressing her throat. On this, the children started crying. Upon that, the neighbours gathered and informed the Gram Pradhan. After three days, the Pradhan informed the informant and thereupon, the informant went to see her and found that the deceased was admitted to Surya Hospital. The villagers told that they have brought her. On the condition of her daughter being deteriorated, she was referred to Medical College. It is further alleged that she has been killed by breaking the neck. Six years ago also, they have tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The allegation in the first information report has not been found correct by the investigating officer. Except the applicant, name of other four persons has been dropped whiling filing charge sheet.

4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report. The applicant accused was in the process of murdering the deceased on 16.3.2021 by hanging her. On the hue and cry made by the children, the neighbours gathered and Gram Pradhan was informed. Six years ago also, the same accused tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil. The son of the deceased Ashish in his statement under section 161 CrPC has stated that often his parents used to indulge into marpeet and on the date of the incident, she was beaten and due to that, his mother fell down and she was taken to the hospital by the applicant and thereafter she died.

5.Having perused the record, I find that the complicity of the accused applicant is evident from the statement of Ashish who is none else than his own son. The other prosecution witnesses Vipin singh, Kushal Kumari and others have also supported the prosecution case. I have also perused the injuries on the person of the deceased, i.e. old injury of 05cm x 02cm behind the head, i.e. 10cm behind right ear, abrasion (old) 1cm x .5cm behind right elbow joint and old injury of 8cm x 05cm on the glutcal region. Immediate cause of death is shock due to ante mortem septicemia. Considering the heinous nature of offence, as also statement of son of the applicant, in the opinion of the court, it is brutal murder and thus, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6.The bail application is rejected."

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected only for the reason that the sole eye witness, namely-Ashish Tiwari who is son of the applicant had recorded his statement against the applicant.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit dated 04.02.2025 saying that in the statement of P.W.- 8, namely-Ashish Tiwari, which is annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, the P.W.-8, who is sole eye witness while recording the statement before the learned Trial Court has turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution version, therefore, learned Trial Court has declared him hostile. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the bail order of the co- accused, namely-Ramnewaj S/O Late Devideen who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3677 of 2022. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant may not address any new ground in this second bail application but has only addressed the ground that P.W.-8 on whose statement, the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected has not turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution version, therefore, learned Trial Court has declared him hostile. He further submits that the applicant has a criminal history of one case which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2022 i.e. more than three years. He further submits that there are 33 prosecution witnesses and till date only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood that the trial gets concluded in near future.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and the fact that the son of the applicant who is P.W.-8 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story and co-accused namely, Ramnewaj S/O Late Devideen who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3677 of 2022, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant-Raj Bahadur 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 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 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if 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 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 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 / her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country (India) without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 -Piyush- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajnish Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 01.02.2022 in in S.T.No.220 of 2022 case crime No.78 of 2021 under sections 498A, 323, 325, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Mohanganj, district Amethi. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant. The first bail application had been rejected vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9237 of 2022. The order dated 08.02.2024 reads as under:- "1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this bail application moved in S.T.No.220 of 2022 case crime No.78 of 2021 under sections 498A, 323, 325, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Mohanganj, district Amethi, and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 9.6.2009. On 16.3.2021, the accused persons were going to murder the victim by pressing her throat. On this, the children started crying. Upon that, the neighbours gathered and informed the Gram Pradhan. After three days, the Pradhan informed the informant and thereupon, the informant went to see her and found that the deceased was admitted to Surya Hospital. The villagers told that they have brought her. On the condition of her daughter being deteriorated, she was referred to Medical College. It is further alleged that she has been killed by breaking the neck. Six years ago also, they have tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The allegation in the first information report has not been found correct by the investigating officer. Except the applicant, name of other four persons has been dropped whiling filing charge sheet.

4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report. The applicant accused was in the process of murdering the deceased on 16.3.2021 by hanging her. On the hue and cry made by the children, the neighbours gathered and Gram Pradhan was informed. Six years ago also, the same accused tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil. The son of the deceased Ashish in his statement under section 161 CrPC has stated that often his parents used to indulge into marpeet and on the date of the incident, she was beaten and due to that, his mother fell down and she was taken to the hospital by the applicant and thereafter she died.

5.Having perused the record, I find that the complicity of the accused applicant is evident from the statement of Ashish who is none else than his own son. The other prosecution witnesses Vipin singh, Kushal Kumari and others have also supported the prosecution case. I have also perused the injuries on the person of the deceased, i.e. old injury of 05cm x 02cm behind the head, i.e. 10cm behind right ear, abrasion (old) 1cm x .5cm behind right elbow joint and old injury of 8cm x 05cm on the glutcal region. Immediate cause of death is shock due to ante mortem septicemia. Considering the heinous nature of offence, as also statement of son of the applicant, in the opinion of the court, it is brutal murder and thus, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6.The bail application is rejected."

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected only for the reason that the sole eye witness, namely-Ashish Tiwari who is son of the applicant had recorded his statement against the applicant.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the supplementary affidavit dated 04.02.2025 saying that in the statement of P.W.- 8, namely-Ashish Tiwari, which is annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, the P.W.-8, who is sole eye witness while recording the statement before the learned Trial Court has turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution version, therefore, learned Trial Court has declared him hostile. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the bail order of the co- accused, namely-Ramnewaj S/O Late Devideen who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3677 of 2022. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant may not address any new ground in this second bail application but has only addressed the ground that P.W.-8 on whose statement, the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected has not turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution version, therefore, learned Trial Court has declared him hostile. He further submits that the applicant has a criminal history of one case which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2022 i.e. more than three years. He further submits that there are 33 prosecution witnesses and till date only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood that the trial gets concluded in near future.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and the fact that the son of the applicant who is P.W.-8 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story and co-accused namely, Ramnewaj S/O Late Devideen who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3677 of 2022, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant-Raj Bahadur 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 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 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if 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 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 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 / her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country (India) without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 -Piyush- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench