Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3240 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41874 of 2024 Applicant :- Ikramudeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Gautam Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajeet Madhesiya, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent and Shri Manoj Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 304, 323, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.05.2024 against applicant and his elder brother and according to the FIR, applicant after entering in the house of the informant alongwith his elder brother made assault upon him through brick and wooden stick and due to the assault made by them, he sustained injuries on his abdomen and leg. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged by the injured himself under Sections 308, 504, 323, 452 but when next day, he died then case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C. 5. She further submits that however entire allegations levelled against applicant are totally false but even if they are accepted then also the instant matter does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II I.P.C. 6. She further submits that as per allegation injured (since deceased) sustained injuries on his leg and abdomen but post- mortem report suggests that he also sustained injuries on his skull and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on false and frivolous facts. 7. She further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in all the three cases, applicant has been falsely made accused by the police. 8. She further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21.05.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months. 9. Per contra, learned brief holder as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that FIR of the present case was lodged by the deceased himself and he specifically stated that applicant and his elder brother caused injuries to him but they could not dispute the fact that even as per the informant i.e. deceased, he sustained injuries on his leg and abdomen but from the post-mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained injuries even on his skull. 10. They further could not dispute the fact that from the facts of the case, it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention to cause the death of the deceased. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, FIR of the present case was lodged by the deceased himself under Section 308 I.P.C. and after his death, case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C. but even as per the informant (since deceased), he sustained injuries only on his leg and abdomen but post-mortem report suggests that he also sustained injuries on his skull, therefore, considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant during the course of the argument, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, even from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant was having any intention to cause the death of the deceased and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant matter does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II I.P.C., can also not be brushed aside at this stage. 14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. 15. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.05.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Ikramudeen, 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad