High Court · 2025

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

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Babu Ram with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.93/2025, under Section – 105, 312, 331 (4), 238 BNS, Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow.

3. In pursuance of the earlier order Investigating OfÏcer of case in question Sajid Ali, SI/IO of the case in question is present along with complete case diary.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the co accused. He further submitted that prior to the date of arrest he was implicated in 6 cases and after the arrest he was implicated in 6 cases which are as under :- (i) Case Crime no.20/25, under section 305 A, 331(4) BNS, police station – Nigoha, District Lucknow. (ii)Case Crime No.53/2025, under section 305 A, 331(4) BNS, police station Nigoha, District Lucknow. (iii) Case Crime No.86/2025 under section 331 (4), 305 BNS, police station- Nagram, Lucknow. (iv ) Case Crime No.95/2025 under section 331 (4), 305, 317(2) BNS, police station – Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. (v) Case Crime no.67/2025, under Section 109 (1) BNS and 3/25 Arms Act, police station – Nigoha, Lucknow.

5. He further submitted the Investigating OfÏcer placed the remand of the applicant before the learned Magistrate in case crime no.20/2025 and 53/2025 (supra) but the learned court below rejected the remand due to absence of the material evidence.

6. He further submitted as per the prosecution case some unknown persons tried to conduct a loot at the house of Ganga Ram, son of Sarju, resident of Gram Bhaidua, police station – Mohanlalganj, Lucknow on 24.3.2025 at 11:45 PM. As the daughter in law of Ganga Ram noticed that someone is coming down from the stairs then she raised alarm then the suspects went back. In the meantime, she heard a noise of tire burst then the Ganga Ram and other family members reached on the roof where they saw that pool of blood was found on the roof and they also saw that some persons were dragging another man.

7. On the written complaint of Gangaram FIR was lodged on 25.3.2025 at 21:16 hrs under section 331 (4) of BNS, police station – Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow and thereafter the investigation was assigned to S.I. Sajid Ali and he further submitted applicant was taken into custody on 15.4.2025 on the basis of confessional statement of Kamlesh. Applicant was taken into custody on 15.4.2025 in another case, i.e., case crime no.67/2025, under section 109(1) BNS and 3/25 of Arms Act and he further submitted thereafter prosecution also developed the case that in the said incident of loot one associate namely Sushil Chauhan received firearm injuries by his companion and thereafter his body was thrown on the railway track.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted entire story is a fabricated one by the police ofÏcers only with the intention to show good work and in support of his argument he submitted that the learned court below had already rejected remand in two cases in which applicant was implicated after arrest and in the present case remand of the applicant was taken on 06.5.2025 by the Investigating ofÏcer. Therefore, applicant is entitled for bail.

9. As the case diary of crime in question is also placed before this Court which clearly reveals that the FIR of the case in question was lodged on 25.3.2025 with the allegations that pool of blood was present on the roof of the complainant. As the site plan was prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer on the pointing out of the informant but no any pool of blood is shown in the site plan.

10. Learned A.G.A submitted that in the said incident fire was opened by the accused persons as Sushil Chauhan who was the co-accused received injuries and thereafter only with the intention to save themselves in place of leaving the body of Sushil Chauhan all the accused persons took away his body by dragging about 800 meters and thereafter his body was thrown on the railway track. As the Investigating OfÏcer also stated that trail of blood was also found but the site plan does not support the version of Investigating OfÏcer.

11. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as the case diary as there is a major contradiction in the case diary as no any blood is found over the roof which is contrary to the prosecution case, therefore, I find it a fit case for bail out.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Babu Ram, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (v) 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 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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./209 B.N.S. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 18.6.2025 MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Babu Ram with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.93/2025, under Section – 105, 312, 331 (4), 238 BNS, Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow.

3. In pursuance of the earlier order Investigating OfÏcer of case in question Sajid Ali, SI/IO of the case in question is present along with complete case diary.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the co accused. He further submitted that prior to the date of arrest he was implicated in 6 cases and after the arrest he was implicated in 6 cases which are as under :- (i) Case Crime no.20/25, under section 305 A, 331(4) BNS, police station – Nigoha, District Lucknow. (ii)Case Crime No.53/2025, under section 305 A, 331(4) BNS, police station Nigoha, District Lucknow. (iii) Case Crime No.86/2025 under section 331 (4), 305 BNS, police station- Nagram, Lucknow. (iv ) Case Crime No.95/2025 under section 331 (4), 305, 317(2) BNS, police station – Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. (v) Case Crime no.67/2025, under Section 109 (1) BNS and 3/25 Arms Act, police station – Nigoha, Lucknow.

5. He further submitted the Investigating OfÏcer placed the remand of the applicant before the learned Magistrate in case crime no.20/2025 and 53/2025 (supra) but the learned court below rejected the remand due to absence of the material evidence.

6. He further submitted as per the prosecution case some unknown persons tried to conduct a loot at the house of Ganga Ram, son of Sarju, resident of Gram Bhaidua, police station – Mohanlalganj, Lucknow on 24.3.2025 at 11:45 PM. As the daughter in law of Ganga Ram noticed that someone is coming down from the stairs then she raised alarm then the suspects went back. In the meantime, she heard a noise of tire burst then the Ganga Ram and other family members reached on the roof where they saw that pool of blood was found on the roof and they also saw that some persons were dragging another man.

7. On the written complaint of Gangaram FIR was lodged on 25.3.2025 at 21:16 hrs under section 331 (4) of BNS, police station – Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow and thereafter the investigation was assigned to S.I. Sajid Ali and he further submitted applicant was taken into custody on 15.4.2025 on the basis of confessional statement of Kamlesh. Applicant was taken into custody on 15.4.2025 in another case, i.e., case crime no.67/2025, under section 109(1) BNS and 3/25 of Arms Act and he further submitted thereafter prosecution also developed the case that in the said incident of loot one associate namely Sushil Chauhan received firearm injuries by his companion and thereafter his body was thrown on the railway track.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted entire story is a fabricated one by the police ofÏcers only with the intention to show good work and in support of his argument he submitted that the learned court below had already rejected remand in two cases in which applicant was implicated after arrest and in the present case remand of the applicant was taken on 06.5.2025 by the Investigating ofÏcer. Therefore, applicant is entitled for bail.

9. As the case diary of crime in question is also placed before this Court which clearly reveals that the FIR of the case in question was lodged on 25.3.2025 with the allegations that pool of blood was present on the roof of the complainant. As the site plan was prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer on the pointing out of the informant but no any pool of blood is shown in the site plan.

10. Learned A.G.A submitted that in the said incident fire was opened by the accused persons as Sushil Chauhan who was the co-accused received injuries and thereafter only with the intention to save themselves in place of leaving the body of Sushil Chauhan all the accused persons took away his body by dragging about 800 meters and thereafter his body was thrown on the railway track. As the Investigating OfÏcer also stated that trail of blood was also found but the site plan does not support the version of Investigating OfÏcer.

11. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as the case diary as there is a major contradiction in the case diary as no any blood is found over the roof which is contrary to the prosecution case, therefore, I find it a fit case for bail out.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Babu Ram, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (ii) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (v) 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 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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./209 B.N.S. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 18.6.2025 MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench