High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Avdhesh Kumar) is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024 in Case Crime No.302 of 2024, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351(3) 105 & 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. As per the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R., the general allegation of assault and beating has been attributed to all the five accused persons. No special role has been attributed to any one. The present applicant is having no motive or intention to kill the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. The version of the FIR and the statement of the complainant is falsified as both the complainant and his nephew, who are said to have got injury, have not undergone any medico legal examination. There are five persons named in the FIR. However, only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons and thus, no specific role of inflicting the fatal blow on the deceased has been assigned to any of the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.11 of the bail application which are the bail orders dated 06.06.2025 passed in favour of the co- accused persons, namely, Ankul @ S.P., Ankit Kumar Upadhyaya and Rohit Kumar, vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1283 of 2025, vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4717 of 2025 and vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3224 of 2025. 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.

7. It is further submitted that charge-sheet in the case has been filed. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. So far as the ground of parity has been pleaded, learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute. However, he has submitted that the 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.

9. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that general role of assault has been attributed to all the accused persons including the applicant; there appears to be no eyewitness of the alleged incident; the alleged injured persons have not undergone any medico legal examination; as per post-mortem report, the cause of death is on account of ante-mortem head injury; applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024 having no criminal antecedents; till date, only one prosecution witness i.e., P.W.-1 could be examined ; the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025 (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Avdhesh 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 229-A IPC/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 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 174-A IPC/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 313 Cr.P.C./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 in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Avdhesh Kumar) is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024 in Case Crime No.302 of 2024, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351(3) 105 & 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4. As per the prosecution story so narrated in the F.I.R., the general allegation of assault and beating has been attributed to all the five accused persons. No special role has been attributed to any one. The present applicant is having no motive or intention to kill the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident. The version of the FIR and the statement of the complainant is falsified as both the complainant and his nephew, who are said to have got injury, have not undergone any medico legal examination. There are five persons named in the FIR. However, only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons and thus, no specific role of inflicting the fatal blow on the deceased has been assigned to any of the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.11 of the bail application which are the bail orders dated 06.06.2025 passed in favour of the co- accused persons, namely, Ankul @ S.P., Ankit Kumar Upadhyaya and Rohit Kumar, vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1283 of 2025, vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4717 of 2025 and vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3224 of 2025. 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.

7. It is further submitted that charge-sheet in the case has been filed. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. So far as the ground of parity has been pleaded, learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute. However, he has submitted that the 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.

9. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that general role of assault has been attributed to all the accused persons including the applicant; there appears to be no eyewitness of the alleged incident; the alleged injured persons have not undergone any medico legal examination; as per post-mortem report, the cause of death is on account of ante-mortem head injury; applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024 having no criminal antecedents; till date, only one prosecution witness i.e., P.W.-1 could be examined ; the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025 (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Avdhesh 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 229-A IPC/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 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 174-A IPC/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 313 Cr.P.C./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 in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench