Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26660 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41577 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivshankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind,Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.245 of 2024, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 15.05.2024 against applicant and according to the FIR, applicant made assault upon his brother i.e. husband of the informant through heavy wooden piece and in the incident, his father also sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR, when husband of the informant has taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is real brother of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits that however in the incident, as per prosecution, father of the applicant also sustained injuries and he also stated that applicant caused injury to the deceased through wooden piece but from his statement, it also reflects that during quarrel suddenly in anger applicant made assault upon the deceased, who is his real brother, therefore, it appears, under sudden provocation, applicant committed the alleged offence. 7. He further submits that post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only single injury and this fact also suggests that applicant was not having any intention to cause his death and therefore, present case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. 8. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but both the cases were of Excise Act. 9. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.05.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is the real brother of the deceased and he not only caused his death but also caused injury to his father but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the injured i.e. father of the applicant, it reflects, in anger applicant made assault. 11. They further could not dispute the fact that post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only single injury. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant is real brother of the deceased and as per allegation, he made assault upon him through heavy wooden piece due to which he sustained injury and died and in the incident his father also sustained injury but from the statement of his father recorded during investigation, it reflects, in anger applicant made assault and considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even from the statement of the injured i.e. his father, it reflects, under sudden provocation applicant made assault, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, post-mortem report suggests, deceased sustained only single injury and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even present case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but both the cases were of Excise Act. 16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.05.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months 17. Further, law is settled, bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Shivshankar 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 24.2.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad