High Court · 2025

first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.9307 of 2023 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 02.08.2024. The order is extracted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.04 of 2023 under section 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Hariyawan, District Hardoi.

3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was staying with the applicant, subsequently, an information was received that the body of the victim was lying in mortuary. The body of the victim was identified by the informant who is the father. The postmortem report on record indicates that the victim had died on account of one contusion injury in front of neck, superficial burn injury over the entire body except the top of the head.

4. The material collected during the investigation demonstrate that the applicant along with the nephew had burn the victim to death after sprinkling petrol, which was brought by the nephew of the applicant.

5. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence to link the applicant with the offence in question as the evidences so far are not enough to co-relate the offence with the applicant and the applicant is in custody since 13.01.2023 and has no criminal history.

6. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that apart from the evidences, which suggest that the nephew of the applicant had purchased petrol, which was used for commission of the offence, the call detailed records in between the applicant and the nephew clearly implicate the applicant with the offence in question. He further argues that the victim was staying with the applicant and no efforts were made to lodge any FIR in respect of the offence.

7. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased which led to her death coupled with the fact that the victim was staying with the applicant, prima-facie, considering the gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out.

8. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

9. However, the trial court is directed to ensure that the testimony of the fact witnesses are recorded without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the first bail application, the trial court was directed to examine the testimony of the fact witnesses. He submits that all the fact witnesses have been examined including one formal witness. There is no possibility of tampering the evidence. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.01.2023 having no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that recovery of personal articles belonging to the deceased have been recovered on the pointing out of the accused applicant to this learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and the co-accused Mainuddin have been kept in the lockup for three days prior to alleged recovery and, therefore, it is planted, there is no independent witness to this recovery. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.01.2023 having no criminal history, fact witnesses have been examined, case is of circumstantial evidence, the relevant fact witnesses have been examined including the complainant, independent witness, the mother of victim, doctor still 34 witnesses are left to be examined so also considering the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sharafat be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.9307 of 2023 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 02.08.2024. The order is extracted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.04 of 2023 under section 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Hariyawan, District Hardoi.

3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was staying with the applicant, subsequently, an information was received that the body of the victim was lying in mortuary. The body of the victim was identified by the informant who is the father. The postmortem report on record indicates that the victim had died on account of one contusion injury in front of neck, superficial burn injury over the entire body except the top of the head.

4. The material collected during the investigation demonstrate that the applicant along with the nephew had burn the victim to death after sprinkling petrol, which was brought by the nephew of the applicant.

5. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence to link the applicant with the offence in question as the evidences so far are not enough to co-relate the offence with the applicant and the applicant is in custody since 13.01.2023 and has no criminal history.

6. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that apart from the evidences, which suggest that the nephew of the applicant had purchased petrol, which was used for commission of the offence, the call detailed records in between the applicant and the nephew clearly implicate the applicant with the offence in question. He further argues that the victim was staying with the applicant and no efforts were made to lodge any FIR in respect of the offence.

7. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased which led to her death coupled with the fact that the victim was staying with the applicant, prima-facie, considering the gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out.

8. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

9. However, the trial court is directed to ensure that the testimony of the fact witnesses are recorded without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the first bail application, the trial court was directed to examine the testimony of the fact witnesses. He submits that all the fact witnesses have been examined including one formal witness. There is no possibility of tampering the evidence. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.01.2023 having no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that recovery of personal articles belonging to the deceased have been recovered on the pointing out of the accused applicant to this learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and the co-accused Mainuddin have been kept in the lockup for three days prior to alleged recovery and, therefore, it is planted, there is no independent witness to this recovery. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.01.2023 having no criminal history, fact witnesses have been examined, case is of circumstantial evidence, the relevant fact witnesses have been examined including the complainant, independent witness, the mother of victim, doctor still 34 witnesses are left to be examined so also considering the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sharafat be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench