Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12089 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44688 of 2024 Applicant :- Azad Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Tiwari,Km. Ashra,Tanveer Zafar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Prakash Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Priyavrat Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Virendra Prakash, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajeet Madhesiya, learned brief holder for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.385 of 2024, under Sections 302, 147, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kasya, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.6.2024 against three named (non-applicant) and three unknown person and according to the FIR on 18.06.2024 about 5:00 p.m. in the evening nominated accused persons along with their three unknown associates has taken the son of the informant on E-rickshaw and thereafter, made assault upon him due to which he died. 4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that incident has been witnessed by the daughter and son of informant namely, Shilpa and Ratan. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but on the basis of statements of alleged eye witnesses namely, Shilpa and Ratan, recorded during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits that however, both the witnesses assigned the role of causing injury through rod to him but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 7. He further submits that actually after the incident applicant has taken the deceased to the hospital therefore, he has been made accused in the present matter. 8. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.06.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that informant admittedly is not eye witness of the alleged incident therefore, she did not disclose the name of the applicant in the FIR. 10. They further submitted the eye witnesses of the incident were son and daughter of the informant namely, Shilpa and Ratan and they have categorically stated that applicant made assault upon deceased through rod therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that applicant did not participate in the alleged crime. 11. They further submits that there is no valid reason to disbelieve the statement of both the alleged eye witnesses and therefore, instant bail application should be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter but it reflects that informant of the case was not an eye witness and eye witnesses of the incident were Shilpa and Ratan, the daughter and son of the informant and both these eye witnesses in their statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant caused injury on the head of the deceased through rod and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 14. Further, the submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to his false implication does not appear to be convincing. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 16. The instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant is rejected. Order Date :- 23.1.2025/Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad