High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 22.05.2025 in FIR/Case Crime No.0093 of 2025, under Sections 105, 312, 331(4), 238 of B.N.S., Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District - Lucknow.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has shown the copies of bail orders granted by this Court in favour of the co-accused persons, namely, Babu Ram and Abhilakh Loniya, vide orders dated 18.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.5181 of 2025 & 5190 of 2025 respectively. The role of the present applicant is absolutely identical with the co-accused persons to whom this Court has granted bail, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. 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. As per FIR, some unknown persons tried to conduct loot at the house of complainant- Ganga Ram on 24.03.2025 at 11:45 PM. As the daughter-in-law of Ganga Ram noticed that someone was coming down from the stairs, she raised alarm then the suspects went back. In the meantime, she heard a noise like tyre burst then Ganga Ram and his other family members reached on the roof where they found pool of blood and they also saw that some persons were dragging another man.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated as the FIR was lodged with the allegation that the complainant and his family members saw pool of blood on the roof of his house and site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of the informant, but no pool of blood has been shown in the site plan. Learned counsel has further submitted that initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant came during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Kamlesh. The present applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases, which have been explained in para-22 of the bail application and in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. Sri Pandey has submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Babu Ram and Abhilakh Loniya, who have been granted bail by this Court, are having criminal history of five cases and six cases respectively, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further, learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

7. So far as the ground of parity has been pleaded, learned AGA could not dispute. However, he has submitted that culpability of the present applicant in the commission of offence along with other co-accused persons has been found, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that FIR was lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant came during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co- accused Kamlesh; prima facie, there is contradiction in the prosecution story as the FIR was lodged with the allegation that the complainant and his family members saw pool of blood on the roof of his house and site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of the informant, but no pool of blood has been shown in the site plan; the aforesaid co-accused persons, having similar role, have been enlarged on bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Buchau Pradhan alias Ram Jeevan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 the 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 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 22.05.2025 in FIR/Case Crime No.0093 of 2025, under Sections 105, 312, 331(4), 238 of B.N.S., Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District - Lucknow.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has shown the copies of bail orders granted by this Court in favour of the co-accused persons, namely, Babu Ram and Abhilakh Loniya, vide orders dated 18.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.5181 of 2025 & 5190 of 2025 respectively. The role of the present applicant is absolutely identical with the co-accused persons to whom this Court has granted bail, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. 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. As per FIR, some unknown persons tried to conduct loot at the house of complainant- Ganga Ram on 24.03.2025 at 11:45 PM. As the daughter-in-law of Ganga Ram noticed that someone was coming down from the stairs, she raised alarm then the suspects went back. In the meantime, she heard a noise like tyre burst then Ganga Ram and his other family members reached on the roof where they found pool of blood and they also saw that some persons were dragging another man.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated as the FIR was lodged with the allegation that the complainant and his family members saw pool of blood on the roof of his house and site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of the informant, but no pool of blood has been shown in the site plan. Learned counsel has further submitted that initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant came during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Kamlesh. The present applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases, which have been explained in para-22 of the bail application and in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. Sri Pandey has submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Babu Ram and Abhilakh Loniya, who have been granted bail by this Court, are having criminal history of five cases and six cases respectively, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further, learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.

7. So far as the ground of parity has been pleaded, learned AGA could not dispute. However, he has submitted that culpability of the present applicant in the commission of offence along with other co-accused persons has been found, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that FIR was lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant came during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co- accused Kamlesh; prima facie, there is contradiction in the prosecution story as the FIR was lodged with the allegation that the complainant and his family members saw pool of blood on the roof of his house and site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of the informant, but no pool of blood has been shown in the site plan; the aforesaid co-accused persons, having similar role, have been enlarged on bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Buchau Pradhan alias Ram Jeevan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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 the 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 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench