High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Irfan Alam, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 04.05.2025 in Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) & 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station - Maharajganj Tarai, District - Balrampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein date of incident has been indicated as 02.05.2025 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 03.05.2025. In the FIR, there is no named accused person but suspicion has been raised against the wife of the deceased. During the course of the investigation, the fact emerged that the wife of the deceased was having relation with one Jitendra Verma, co-accused, and to meet him, she used to come to her maternal place. She was willing to marry with co-accused Jitendra Verma as she was not satisfied with her husband. In the last four years of marriage, she was not having any children. Jitendra Verma is the main accused, who has planned to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of Uma Devi Verma, co- accused and at the time of execution of the plan, five accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar (present applicant), Mukesh Sahu, Sachin Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav and Mukesh Kumar Verma were with him and as per confessional statement, the main accused Jitendra Verma has killed the husband of co- accused Uma Devi Verma through knife. The aforesaid knife has been recovered on the pointing out of such co-accused Jitendra Verma. Even as per confessional statement of Jitendra Verma, present applicant alongwith others were standing on the spot but they have not committed any offence. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution story creates suspicion on the confessional statement of Jitendra Verma wherein he has stated that he had sent Mukesh Kumar Verma to call the other accused persons whereas in subsequent part of the statement, he has stated that all co-accused persons were with him. If the confessional statement of co-accused Uma Devi Verma and main accused Jitendra Verma are read together, one fact would be, prima facie, undisputed that the main accused Jitendra Verma was having relation with co-accused Uma Devi Verma and both were willing to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of co-accused Uma Devi Verma. Further, co-accused Akhilesh Yadav, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6213 of 2025, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution story may be ascertained and tested during the course of the trial but the investigation is still pending.

4. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever as recital to this effect has been given in para-15 of the bail application. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the investigation and if charge sheet is filed against him, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the bail application but they could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as the ground of parity.

6. 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 the FIR was lodged against unknown person but in the confessional statements of co- accused Uma Devi Verma and Jitendra Verma, name of the present applicant has emerged; prima facie, it appears that main accused is Jitendra Verma, who has confessed that he planned to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of co-accused Uma Devi with whom he was having relations and killed her husband Harindra Verma; even as per confessional statement of main accused Jitendra Verma, present applicant alongwith other co- accused persons was standing on the spot but he has not committed any offence; if the confessional statements of co- accused Uma Devi Verma and main accused Jitendra Verma are read together, one fact would be, prima facie, undisputed that the main accused Jitendra Verma was having relation with co- accused Uma Devi Verma and both were willing to eliminate Harindra Verma; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; co-accused Akhilesh Yadav having similar role has been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and if charge sheet is filed against him, 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.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let applicant- Santosh Kumar 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 :- 17.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Irfan Alam, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 04.05.2025 in Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) & 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station - Maharajganj Tarai, District - Balrampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein date of incident has been indicated as 02.05.2025 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 03.05.2025. In the FIR, there is no named accused person but suspicion has been raised against the wife of the deceased. During the course of the investigation, the fact emerged that the wife of the deceased was having relation with one Jitendra Verma, co-accused, and to meet him, she used to come to her maternal place. She was willing to marry with co-accused Jitendra Verma as she was not satisfied with her husband. In the last four years of marriage, she was not having any children. Jitendra Verma is the main accused, who has planned to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of Uma Devi Verma, co- accused and at the time of execution of the plan, five accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar (present applicant), Mukesh Sahu, Sachin Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav and Mukesh Kumar Verma were with him and as per confessional statement, the main accused Jitendra Verma has killed the husband of co- accused Uma Devi Verma through knife. The aforesaid knife has been recovered on the pointing out of such co-accused Jitendra Verma. Even as per confessional statement of Jitendra Verma, present applicant alongwith others were standing on the spot but they have not committed any offence. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution story creates suspicion on the confessional statement of Jitendra Verma wherein he has stated that he had sent Mukesh Kumar Verma to call the other accused persons whereas in subsequent part of the statement, he has stated that all co-accused persons were with him. If the confessional statement of co-accused Uma Devi Verma and main accused Jitendra Verma are read together, one fact would be, prima facie, undisputed that the main accused Jitendra Verma was having relation with co-accused Uma Devi Verma and both were willing to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of co-accused Uma Devi Verma. Further, co-accused Akhilesh Yadav, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6213 of 2025, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution story may be ascertained and tested during the course of the trial but the investigation is still pending.

4. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever as recital to this effect has been given in para-15 of the bail application. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the investigation and if charge sheet is filed against him, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have, however, opposed the bail application but they could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as the ground of parity.

6. 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 the FIR was lodged against unknown person but in the confessional statements of co- accused Uma Devi Verma and Jitendra Verma, name of the present applicant has emerged; prima facie, it appears that main accused is Jitendra Verma, who has confessed that he planned to eliminate Harindra Verma, husband of co-accused Uma Devi with whom he was having relations and killed her husband Harindra Verma; even as per confessional statement of main accused Jitendra Verma, present applicant alongwith other co- accused persons was standing on the spot but he has not committed any offence; if the confessional statements of co- accused Uma Devi Verma and main accused Jitendra Verma are read together, one fact would be, prima facie, undisputed that the main accused Jitendra Verma was having relation with co- accused Uma Devi Verma and both were willing to eliminate Harindra Verma; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; co-accused Akhilesh Yadav having similar role has been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and if charge sheet is filed against him, 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.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let applicant- Santosh Kumar 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 :- 17.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench