Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60807 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3117 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nirbhay Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State-respondent is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Satish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State- respondent and Shri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.88 of 2024, under Sections 147, 452, 302, 323, 504, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.03.2024 against applicant and eight others and according to the FIR, on 29.03.2024 at about 9:30 p.m. in the night applicant and other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and made assault upon his son. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and co- accused Ratnesh caused head injury upon the son of the informant through iron rod. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 308 I.P.C. and other sections but after the death of the injured i.e son of the informant, case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. He further submits that in the FIR as many as nine persons were made accused and therefore, prima-facie, it appears to be a case of over implication. 7. He further submits that however, as per allegation, applicant and co-accused Ratnesh gave assault on the head of the deceased but it appears, only to make their case more serious, it has been mentioned in the FIR of the present case. 8. He further submits that co-accused Atul has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35878 of 2024 and considering the fact that deceased sustained as many as twelve injuries, it cannot be said that co-accused Atul did not participate in the alleged incident and therefore, on facts, case of applicant is at par with him and applicant should also be released on bail. 9. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 01.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is the principal accused and he alongwith co-accused Ratnesh caused head injuries to the deceased and therefore, role of applicant is distinguishable from the role of co-accused Atul and therefore, he cannot claim parity with the bail order of co-accused Atul. 11. He further submits that however, applicant is in jail for last more than a year but considering the manner of incident and nature of allegation and number of injuries sustained by the deceased merely on this ground, he should not be released on bail. 12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. As per allegation, applicant and eight others made assault and due to the assault made by them, son of the informant died. Record also suggests that there is specific allegation against applicant and co-accused Ratnesh that they caused head injuries to the deceased and post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as many as twelve injuries. 14. Further, however, co-accused Atul has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from him. 15. Further, however, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 01.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in such matters, it is not proper to release an accused on bail merely on the ground that he is in jail for more than one year. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application filed by applicant- Ashish is hereby rejected. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 22.4.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad