Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26643 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37444 of 2024 Applicant :- Haider Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Satsangi Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Haider with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.178 of 2023 (Session Trial No. 1636 of 2023), under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 4/25(1B)(B) Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 27.04.2023 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. by Bhure Kuraishi against the present applicant, Ali and Sajjad with the allegation that on 26.04.2023 at about 11:55 P.M. his son Mohd. Miyan was returning after taking food near Hajeeb medical store, the accused persons due to old enmity started abusing him, which was opposed by him and then all the three accused persons assaulted with knife, due to which he received serious injuries. On screaming by the injured, the accused persons while exhorting ran away. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although, the police has shown the statement of the injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 29.04.2024 but the incident in the present case is of 26.04.2024 and there was ample time for the police to take the satisfaction of the doctor and even the investigating officer to record his satisfaction regarding wellness of the deceased to give his dying declaration. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 29 in the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 31.05.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statement of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as being a witness for the same and not as a dying declaration, subsequently, since he had died, aforesaid statement is to be treated as a dying declaration and as such the checks and balances for testing dying declaration cannot be implied in the present matter. It is submitted that the applicant is the main person, who had given various blows to the deceased on various parts of the body with knife. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have received five stitched wounds and one incised wound on his body, which were the cause of his death. It is submitted that knife has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant, hence, the bail of the applicant be thus rejected. 7. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and has been assigned the role of using a knife for assault on the deceased. The medical report corroborates with the prosecution story. The alleged weapon of assault has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The statement of the deceased was recorded during investigation. The truthfulness of the same is to be dealt with by the trial court at appropriate stage. The trial in the matter is going on, there is no such ground to interfere in the matter, hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad