State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow vs Party(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 28.06.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., Saurabh Singh came to the informant’s house on a motorcycle and left with his brother Ajay Kumar Singh for Amethi. At around 8:45 p.m., Saurabh Singh returned hurriedly to his Gaushala and informed that while coming back from Amethi, Monu Pasi and Sagar Verma, who were in an intoxicated state, stopped them, causing him to fall from the motorcycle. It is further alleged that both assailants assaulted Ajay Kumar Singh with bricks and an iron rod, leaving him unconscious. On receiving this information, the informant accompanied Saurabh Singh reached to the spot and took the injured to the Community Health Centre, Amethi, where doctors declared him dead. A suspicion has been raised that the deceased was killed as part of a conspiracy.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution version is doubtful. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased sustained seven antemortem injuries, including lacerated wounds (injuries no. 1 and 2), contusions (injuries no. 3, 4, 5, and 7), and multiple abrasions (injury no. 6). The cause of death is hemorrhage and shock resulting from the antemortem injuries. It is also submitted that annexure No. 7 of the bail application is a part of case diary wherein the investigating officer observed that Saurabh Singh, cited as an eyewitness, is a doubtful 2 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024 witness.

4. It is further argued that no motive has been attributed to the applicant, nor has any lethal weapon been specifically assigned to him. Even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, as per the statement of Saurabh Singh (injured/eyewitness), the dispute erupted all of a sudden while both the accused, being in a drunken state, abused and assaulted Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh over a trivial issue and thereafter, the injured went away to seek help. Another prosecution witness, Pankaj Kumar, has told a different version, stating that both Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh had consumed beer.

5. It is further contended that the statements of the alleged eyewitness and other prosecution witnesses are inconsistent. Even if the prosecution case is taken at face value, at most, an offence under Section 304(2) IPC is made out, as there was no prior intention, motive, or preparation to commit the offence, nor any knowledge that such act would cause death.

6. It is further submitted that 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.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, submitting that an iron rod, allegedly used in the offence, has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant.

8. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery is false, having been shown after 47 days of the incident. The role and conduct of Saurabh Singh, who had accompanied the deceased, is highly suspicious, as also observed by the investigating officer and recorded in Annexure No. 7. Further, statements of prosecution witnesses Pankaj Kumar and Chand Ali indicate that both Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh were intoxicated. The applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 07.08.2024, and the charge sheet has already been filed.

9. Considering the facts that the applicant, without any criminal 3 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024 antecedents, is in custody since 07.08.2024; the charge sheet has been filed; and the testimony of injured Saurabh Singh is inconsistent with that of other prosecution witnesses, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Sagar Verma involved in Case Crime No. 149/2024, Under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 4 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024

12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 1, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 28.06.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., Saurabh Singh came to the informant’s house on a motorcycle and left with his brother Ajay Kumar Singh for Amethi. At around 8:45 p.m., Saurabh Singh returned hurriedly to his Gaushala and informed that while coming back from Amethi, Monu Pasi and Sagar Verma, who were in an intoxicated state, stopped them, causing him to fall from the motorcycle. It is further alleged that both assailants assaulted Ajay Kumar Singh with bricks and an iron rod, leaving him unconscious. On receiving this information, the informant accompanied Saurabh Singh reached to the spot and took the injured to the Community Health Centre, Amethi, where doctors declared him dead. A suspicion has been raised that the deceased was killed as part of a conspiracy.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution version is doubtful. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased sustained seven antemortem injuries, including lacerated wounds (injuries no. 1 and 2), contusions (injuries no. 3, 4, 5, and 7), and multiple abrasions (injury no. 6). The cause of death is hemorrhage and shock resulting from the antemortem injuries. It is also submitted that annexure No. 7 of the bail application is a part of case diary wherein the investigating officer observed that Saurabh Singh, cited as an eyewitness, is a doubtful 2 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024 witness.

4. It is further argued that no motive has been attributed to the applicant, nor has any lethal weapon been specifically assigned to him. Even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, as per the statement of Saurabh Singh (injured/eyewitness), the dispute erupted all of a sudden while both the accused, being in a drunken state, abused and assaulted Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh over a trivial issue and thereafter, the injured went away to seek help. Another prosecution witness, Pankaj Kumar, has told a different version, stating that both Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh had consumed beer.

5. It is further contended that the statements of the alleged eyewitness and other prosecution witnesses are inconsistent. Even if the prosecution case is taken at face value, at most, an offence under Section 304(2) IPC is made out, as there was no prior intention, motive, or preparation to commit the offence, nor any knowledge that such act would cause death.

6. It is further submitted that 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.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, submitting that an iron rod, allegedly used in the offence, has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant.

8. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery is false, having been shown after 47 days of the incident. The role and conduct of Saurabh Singh, who had accompanied the deceased, is highly suspicious, as also observed by the investigating officer and recorded in Annexure No. 7. Further, statements of prosecution witnesses Pankaj Kumar and Chand Ali indicate that both Ajay Kumar Singh and Saurabh Singh were intoxicated. The applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, is in custody since 07.08.2024, and the charge sheet has already been filed.

9. Considering the facts that the applicant, without any criminal 3 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024 antecedents, is in custody since 07.08.2024; the charge sheet has been filed; and the testimony of injured Saurabh Singh is inconsistent with that of other prosecution witnesses, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Sagar Verma involved in Case Crime No. 149/2024, Under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 4 BAIL No. 11760 of 2024

12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 1, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench