HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1161 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. This criminal appeal U/S 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant for setting aside the judgment and order of learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich dated 26.03.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2004 (State Vs. Lal Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 579 of 2003 under Sections 304/34,323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kot. Nanpara, District Bahraich convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 304/34 I.P.C., for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- and in default of fine 3 months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC for 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine 15 days additional simple imprisonment. List in due course. Order in bail application By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2004 (State Vs. Lal Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 579 of 2003 under Sections 304/34,323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kot. Nanpara, District Bahraich. The applicant is in jail since 26.03.2025. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Jibrail .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. .....Respondent(s) The following arguments made by Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant-appellant which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishikesh Verma, learned AGA from the record from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant in the incident in all stages of prosecution case. 2. The applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted the fatal injury to the deceased even by sole eye witness/PW-2 who is the son of the deceased. 3. The doctor who conducted the postmortem while testifying as P.W. 4 stated that the cause of death was coma. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the coma was induced by the injuries sustained in the alleged incident. The injuries sustained in the incident cannot be linked with the cause of death. 4.(a). As per the prosecution case the deceased was taken to Nanpara Hospital. However, no medical report of Nanpara Hospital has been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution withheld the material piece of evidence for which adverse inference ought to be drawn against the prosecution. (b). The trial court misread the evidences and also neglected to consider material parts of the evidences which vitiate the trial court judgment. 5. The prosecution also failed to prove the injuries sustained by the sole eye witness, and could not produce the doctor who had treated the sole injured eye witness. The said deficiencies discredit the prosecution case. 6. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in CRLA No. 1161 of 2025 2 false cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. 7. The applicant has sanguine hope of succeeding in the appeal in view of the errors committed by the learned trial court while appreciating the evidence. 8. The appeal before this Court is not likely to be heard in any time in the near future. 9. Inordinate delay in hearing of the appeal will led to an indefinite detention of the appellant. 10. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen had always cooperated with the investigation and joined the trial proceedings. The applicant is not likely to reoffend. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Jibrail be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The realization of the fine shall remain stayed. August 28, 2025 Dhananjai CRLA No. 1161 of 2025 3 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench