High Court · 2025

been opined to be ‘head injury due to projectile of the firearm’. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. he stated that after lodging of the F.I.R. he acquired knowledge of involvement of some other persons also in commission of the offence. After reiterating the F.I.R. version, the informant further stated that when he was going towards the Yashwant’s village searching for his uncle, he saw a crowd on the way and upon stopping he found the dead-body of his uncle lying beneath his motorcycle. The Police had reached the spot. The informant stated that his uncle had been killed by Sunil, Yashwant and Dilip, alls sons of Rajmani, their relative Ravi Yadav (the applicant) and Sunil’s Bus-driver Anup, as they were not in a position to refund the money taken from him and they were threatening the informant’s uncle for the past few days that he should not insult them by demanding repayment of amount repetitively. The informant also stated that all five persons had abused his uncle on a road near his uncle’s house. His uncle had stated that he will recover the amount in any situation and he would come to their house to recover the money. Several persons had mediated and tried to

13. resolve the dispute. The informant did not know as to when his uncle went to the accused persons’ village. He got information of the incident in the morning and he went to the Police Station, but in a hurry he lodged the F.I.R. against Sunil Yadav and Yashwant Yadav only, whereas all five persons were involved in commission of the offence. The deceased person’s driver Sonu Gautam also supported the F.I.R. version. The Police claim that all five persons were intercepted while they were standing on a service lane near Maharua Turn. One person escaped in a white Baleno Car. The other four persons, including the applicant, were arrested. Rs. 1070.00 are said to have been recovered from the applicant. A pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from co-accused Sunil, a chopper was recovered from co-accused Anup and Rs. 900.00 are said to have been recovered from co-accused Yashwant Yadav. The i-20 car bearing registration No. UP-45-AQ-5510 was taken into custody. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The State has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the bail application, annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2024. The relevant extract of case-diary annexed with the counter-affidavit shows that the investigating officer has recorded that from a perusal of call detail records of the deceased and the accused persons, their location has been found to be near the place of the incident. The call detail records of the applicant Ravi Yadav establish that co-accused Yashwant had made 9 phone calls to the applicant, whereas the applicant had made 5 calls to the co-accused Yashwant on 05.07.2024 between 10:00 a.m. and 18:05 p.m.

14. Call details of the deceased disclose that a total of 4 outgoing and 3 incoming were made between him and the co-accused Yashwant on

05.07.2024 between 10:36 a.m. - 16:54 p.m. No mobile conversation took place between the deceased and the applicant.

15. Apparently, no conversation took place between the deceased and any of the accused persons after 18:05 p.m. As per the F.I.R., the deceased was alive at least till 11:43 p.m., when he had made a phone call to the informant. Therefore, the call detail records annexed with the counter- affidavit filed by the State, do not make any mention of the location of any of the accused persons at or near the time of incident.

16. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of the statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial court and the examination-in-chief of P.W-5. The cross-examination of P.W.5 was continuing till preparation of the supplementary counter affidavit.

17. In his cross-examination, P.W-1 (the informant) stated that after he had lodged the F.I.R. against Yashwant Yadav and Sunil Yadav, he got information about involvement of the other accused persons within half an hour since lodging of the F.I.R. This information was not given to him by any person, but he had acquired this information by himself. He stated that the deceased did not possess any license for lending money. He further stated that the accused persons had not repaid any amount to the deceased.

18. The widow of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 and she stated that the accused persons had borrowed more than Rs. 50 lacs from her husband and they were not refunding the money. They had given a cheque for an amount exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, but they had asked her husband not to present the cheque in the Bank. The cheque was presented in the Bank and it was dishonored. She stated that she has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

19. In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she could not tell the exact amount lent by her husband to the accused persons and she even could not tell any other particulars regarding the amount lent. Two Cheques for Rs. 9 lacs and 7.5 lacs drawn by the applicant Ravi Yadav on

04.07.2024 in favour of the deceased have been annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the informant.

20. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dablu Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand: (2024) 3 SCR 614, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - “3. During the course of arguments, it was aprised to the Court that the trial is at the fag end and almost all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution except one witness.

4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more particularly, when the trial is at the fag end.”

21. While relying upon a precedent, only the ratio of law laid down in the precedent is binding. Where no principle of law has been considered or laid down and merely a plea for grant of bail has been decided, the order granting or rejecting a bail cannot be treated as a precedent.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the fundamental right of liberty is involved, the court should consider and decide the plea for release of an accused person on bail, of course, after taking into consideration the entire relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. There is no general principle of universal application that the bail application of an accused person cannot be considered after almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. In the present case, the charge-sheet mentions as many as 29 prosecution witnesses and merely 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the bail application of the accused persons cannot be rejected merely on the ground that 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

23. At this stage the learned counsel for the informant made a request that his statement being made at bar be recorded by this Court that only six prosecution witnesses will be examined and no other witness will be examined by the prosecution. However, in response to a specific query put by the Court to the learned A.G.A., he stated that he has no instructions that the prosecution will not examine any more witnesses.

24. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available before the Court at this stage is that the F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar on 06.07.2024 at about 07:10 AM. It is strange that the inquest proceedings also started precisely at the same time in village Sanghia Narayanpur, which is about 7 KM away from the Police Station. The informant has stated in the F.I.R. that his Uncle had gone out of the village at 11:00 p.m. and he had made a telephone call to him at 11:43 p.m. and had told that he was going to the house of the co-accused Yashwant Yadav and the informant should stay awake in case something happens. In the morning the call made to the Uncle could not get through and when the informant made a phone call to the co-accused Yashwant, he told that he had gone to Kanpur taking a bus. When the informant asked Yashwant Yadav to make enquiries from his brother, he stated that he was also away from his home since night. Merely from the aforesaid circumstances, the informant drew an inference that his uncle had been killed by these persons. The FIR does not make any mention of the fact that the informant’s uncle has in fact died and that he had come to know about death of his uncle and the source, manner and time of acquiring this information. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of entire facts and circumstances relating to the case. There can be no dispute against the aforesaid proposition, but when an FIR is registered regarding a murder, the fact that the deceased had in fact died, is the most relevant fact and it cannot be said that non-

26. mention of the factum of death of the deceased merely amounts to non-writing the FIR as an encyclopedia. The FIR does not make any mention that the deceased had lent any money to any of the accused persons and that they were threatening the deceased person. The widow of the deceased has stated during her examination before the trial Court that the accused persons had taken a sum exceeding Rs.50 lacs, but she could not tell the exact amount or any other particulars regarding the amount lent by her husband. There is no disclosure of the fact that the accused persons had already given four cheques for amounts aggregating to Rs. 33.5 lacs to the deceased on 04.07.2024 i.e. more than one day prior to the incident. Although the deceased is said to be pressing hard for recovery of the amount lent by him, the cheques given by the accused persons to the deceased on 04.07.2024, were not presented to the bank till 10.09.2024.

27. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that a Baleno Car was seen in a CCTV Camera installed in Panchayat Bhawan. However, no Baleno Car has been recovered by the Investigating Officer. There is no mention of the registration number of the Baleno Car and the Baleno Car could not be connected with any of the accused persons.

28. Without making any further observations, which may affect the outcome of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

29. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Ravi Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. Order Date: 16.04.2025 A. Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

been opined to be ‘head injury due to projectile of the firearm’. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180, B.N.S.S. he stated that after lodging of the F.I.R. he acquired knowledge of involvement of some other persons also in commission of the offence. After reiterating the F.I.R. version, the informant further stated that when he was going towards the Yashwant’s village searching for his uncle, he saw a crowd on the way and upon stopping he found the dead-body of his uncle lying beneath his motorcycle. The Police had reached the spot. The informant stated that his uncle had been killed by Sunil, Yashwant and Dilip, alls sons of Rajmani, their relative Ravi Yadav (the applicant) and Sunil’s Bus-driver Anup, as they were not in a position to refund the money taken from him and they were threatening the informant’s uncle for the past few days that he should not insult them by demanding repayment of amount repetitively. The informant also stated that all five persons had abused his uncle on a road near his uncle’s house. His uncle had stated that he will recover the amount in any situation and he would come to their house to recover the money. Several persons had mediated and tried to

13. resolve the dispute. The informant did not know as to when his uncle went to the accused persons’ village. He got information of the incident in the morning and he went to the Police Station, but in a hurry he lodged the F.I.R. against Sunil Yadav and Yashwant Yadav only, whereas all five persons were involved in commission of the offence. The deceased person’s driver Sonu Gautam also supported the F.I.R. version. The Police claim that all five persons were intercepted while they were standing on a service lane near Maharua Turn. One person escaped in a white Baleno Car. The other four persons, including the applicant, were arrested. Rs. 1070.00 are said to have been recovered from the applicant. A pistol and a live cartridge was recovered from co-accused Sunil, a chopper was recovered from co-accused Anup and Rs. 900.00 are said to have been recovered from co-accused Yashwant Yadav. The i-20 car bearing registration No. UP-45-AQ-5510 was taken into custody. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The State has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the bail application, annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2024. The relevant extract of case-diary annexed with the counter-affidavit shows that the investigating officer has recorded that from a perusal of call detail records of the deceased and the accused persons, their location has been found to be near the place of the incident. The call detail records of the applicant Ravi Yadav establish that co-accused Yashwant had made 9 phone calls to the applicant, whereas the applicant had made 5 calls to the co-accused Yashwant on 05.07.2024 between 10:00 a.m. and 18:05 p.m.

14. Call details of the deceased disclose that a total of 4 outgoing and 3 incoming were made between him and the co-accused Yashwant on

05.07.2024 between 10:36 a.m. - 16:54 p.m. No mobile conversation took place between the deceased and the applicant.

15. Apparently, no conversation took place between the deceased and any of the accused persons after 18:05 p.m. As per the F.I.R., the deceased was alive at least till 11:43 p.m., when he had made a phone call to the informant. Therefore, the call detail records annexed with the counter- affidavit filed by the State, do not make any mention of the location of any of the accused persons at or near the time of incident.

16. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of the statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial court and the examination-in-chief of P.W-5. The cross-examination of P.W.5 was continuing till preparation of the supplementary counter affidavit.

17. In his cross-examination, P.W-1 (the informant) stated that after he had lodged the F.I.R. against Yashwant Yadav and Sunil Yadav, he got information about involvement of the other accused persons within half an hour since lodging of the F.I.R. This information was not given to him by any person, but he had acquired this information by himself. He stated that the deceased did not possess any license for lending money. He further stated that the accused persons had not repaid any amount to the deceased.

18. The widow of the deceased has been examined as P.W.3 and she stated that the accused persons had borrowed more than Rs. 50 lacs from her husband and they were not refunding the money. They had given a cheque for an amount exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, but they had asked her husband not to present the cheque in the Bank. The cheque was presented in the Bank and it was dishonored. She stated that she has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

19. In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she could not tell the exact amount lent by her husband to the accused persons and she even could not tell any other particulars regarding the amount lent. Two Cheques for Rs. 9 lacs and 7.5 lacs drawn by the applicant Ravi Yadav on

04.07.2024 in favour of the deceased have been annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the informant.

20. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dablu Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand: (2024) 3 SCR 614, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - “3. During the course of arguments, it was aprised to the Court that the trial is at the fag end and almost all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution except one witness.

4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more particularly, when the trial is at the fag end.”

21. While relying upon a precedent, only the ratio of law laid down in the precedent is binding. Where no principle of law has been considered or laid down and merely a plea for grant of bail has been decided, the order granting or rejecting a bail cannot be treated as a precedent.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the fundamental right of liberty is involved, the court should consider and decide the plea for release of an accused person on bail, of course, after taking into consideration the entire relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. There is no general principle of universal application that the bail application of an accused person cannot be considered after almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. In the present case, the charge-sheet mentions as many as 29 prosecution witnesses and merely 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the bail application of the accused persons cannot be rejected merely on the ground that 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

23. At this stage the learned counsel for the informant made a request that his statement being made at bar be recorded by this Court that only six prosecution witnesses will be examined and no other witness will be examined by the prosecution. However, in response to a specific query put by the Court to the learned A.G.A., he stated that he has no instructions that the prosecution will not examine any more witnesses.

24. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material available before the Court at this stage is that the F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar on 06.07.2024 at about 07:10 AM. It is strange that the inquest proceedings also started precisely at the same time in village Sanghia Narayanpur, which is about 7 KM away from the Police Station. The informant has stated in the F.I.R. that his Uncle had gone out of the village at 11:00 p.m. and he had made a telephone call to him at 11:43 p.m. and had told that he was going to the house of the co-accused Yashwant Yadav and the informant should stay awake in case something happens. In the morning the call made to the Uncle could not get through and when the informant made a phone call to the co-accused Yashwant, he told that he had gone to Kanpur taking a bus. When the informant asked Yashwant Yadav to make enquiries from his brother, he stated that he was also away from his home since night. Merely from the aforesaid circumstances, the informant drew an inference that his uncle had been killed by these persons. The FIR does not make any mention of the fact that the informant’s uncle has in fact died and that he had come to know about death of his uncle and the source, manner and time of acquiring this information. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of entire facts and circumstances relating to the case. There can be no dispute against the aforesaid proposition, but when an FIR is registered regarding a murder, the fact that the deceased had in fact died, is the most relevant fact and it cannot be said that non-

26. mention of the factum of death of the deceased merely amounts to non-writing the FIR as an encyclopedia. The FIR does not make any mention that the deceased had lent any money to any of the accused persons and that they were threatening the deceased person. The widow of the deceased has stated during her examination before the trial Court that the accused persons had taken a sum exceeding Rs.50 lacs, but she could not tell the exact amount or any other particulars regarding the amount lent by her husband. There is no disclosure of the fact that the accused persons had already given four cheques for amounts aggregating to Rs. 33.5 lacs to the deceased on 04.07.2024 i.e. more than one day prior to the incident. Although the deceased is said to be pressing hard for recovery of the amount lent by him, the cheques given by the accused persons to the deceased on 04.07.2024, were not presented to the bank till 10.09.2024.

27. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that a Baleno Car was seen in a CCTV Camera installed in Panchayat Bhawan. However, no Baleno Car has been recovered by the Investigating Officer. There is no mention of the registration number of the Baleno Car and the Baleno Car could not be connected with any of the accused persons.

28. Without making any further observations, which may affect the outcome of the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

29. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Ravi Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. Order Date: 16.04.2025 A. Nigam (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench