High Court · 2025

Cr.P.C. This is the case referred in the FIR in which the deceased had suffered injuries.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the recovery memo mentions that a knife was recovered on pointing of co-accused Taha and in his custodial statement, Taha confessed that he had killed the deceased. He has submitted that when the role of killing has been assigned to co- accused Taha, at the most the applicant can be held guilty of catching hold of the deceased at the time of commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Copies of statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer have been annexed with the bail application. The witnesses have stated that the deceased used to offer Namaz five times a day. He had went to offer Namaz in a Mosque situated near the home. Immediately after the Namaz, when he came out of the Mosque, he was killed by the accused persons who are uncle and cousins of the deceased. The deceased's wife had reached the spot immediately and she stated that all the accused persons killed him due to an old property dispute.

8. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of charge-sheet submitted on 12.05.2024.

9. The informant has also file a counter affidavit annexing therewith photograph showing the deceased in an injured condition after the incident that had taken place previously. The particulars of the property dispute between the parties and a copy of the plaint filed in Regular Suit No.2019 of 2023 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, has also been annexed with the counter affidavit.

10. On the last date, the Court had directed the learned counsel for the applicant to bring on record a copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court which has been filed alongwith the two supplementary affidavits. A perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court shows that the matter was committed to the Session Court on 17.02.2025. On 18.02.2025, time was prayed for by the accused persons for filing a discharge application. On

28.02.2025, the accused persons gave an adjournment application to enable them engage an Advocate. On 10.03.2025, learned counsel for the accused persons was not present and, therefore, the matter was adjourned. On 04.04.2025, the matter was fixed for framing of charges, when the accused persons again sought adjournment of the case. Thereafter, charges have been framed on 10.04.2025.

11. These facts indicate that no delay is being cause in trial by the prosecution and the delay is being caused by the accused persons themselves.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant, the deceased and the applicants belong to the same family and there is a property dispute between them; that the motive for commission of the offence has been said to be an old property dispute; the deceased had been assaulted by the accused persons at an earlier occasion also wherein he had suffered injuries and a case under Section 308 I.P.C. was lodged earlier but as the accused persons had been granted protection of the provisions contained under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., they were not arrested and thereafter it is alleged that they have given effect to the present incident and that the accused persons are not co- operating in the expeditious proceedings of the trial, I am of the view that the facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by enlarging the applicant on bail.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Cr.P.C. This is the case referred in the FIR in which the deceased had suffered injuries.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the recovery memo mentions that a knife was recovered on pointing of co-accused Taha and in his custodial statement, Taha confessed that he had killed the deceased. He has submitted that when the role of killing has been assigned to co- accused Taha, at the most the applicant can be held guilty of catching hold of the deceased at the time of commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Copies of statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer have been annexed with the bail application. The witnesses have stated that the deceased used to offer Namaz five times a day. He had went to offer Namaz in a Mosque situated near the home. Immediately after the Namaz, when he came out of the Mosque, he was killed by the accused persons who are uncle and cousins of the deceased. The deceased's wife had reached the spot immediately and she stated that all the accused persons killed him due to an old property dispute.

8. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of charge-sheet submitted on 12.05.2024.

9. The informant has also file a counter affidavit annexing therewith photograph showing the deceased in an injured condition after the incident that had taken place previously. The particulars of the property dispute between the parties and a copy of the plaint filed in Regular Suit No.2019 of 2023 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, has also been annexed with the counter affidavit.

10. On the last date, the Court had directed the learned counsel for the applicant to bring on record a copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court which has been filed alongwith the two supplementary affidavits. A perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court shows that the matter was committed to the Session Court on 17.02.2025. On 18.02.2025, time was prayed for by the accused persons for filing a discharge application. On

28.02.2025, the accused persons gave an adjournment application to enable them engage an Advocate. On 10.03.2025, learned counsel for the accused persons was not present and, therefore, the matter was adjourned. On 04.04.2025, the matter was fixed for framing of charges, when the accused persons again sought adjournment of the case. Thereafter, charges have been framed on 10.04.2025.

11. These facts indicate that no delay is being cause in trial by the prosecution and the delay is being caused by the accused persons themselves.

12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant, the deceased and the applicants belong to the same family and there is a property dispute between them; that the motive for commission of the offence has been said to be an old property dispute; the deceased had been assaulted by the accused persons at an earlier occasion also wherein he had suffered injuries and a case under Section 308 I.P.C. was lodged earlier but as the accused persons had been granted protection of the provisions contained under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., they were not arrested and thereafter it is alleged that they have given effect to the present incident and that the accused persons are not co- operating in the expeditious proceedings of the trial, I am of the view that the facts of the present case do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by enlarging the applicant on bail.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench