Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28853 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3637 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramladaite Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gupta,Rishikesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratima Pandey Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri D. K. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pratima Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 788 of 2024, under Sections 190, 191(3), 127(2), 352, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.11.2024 against applicant and five others and according to the FIR on 16.11.2024 at about 10 am in the morning dispute arose between brother of the informant and co-accused Vinod Kumar & Veru and thereafter when he was returning home then on the way, when he arrived at the house of co-accused Vinod Kumar then they alongwith applicant and others badly beaten him through kicks and fists and wooden sticks due to which he sustained serious injuries and he has been admitted in the hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 110 BNS but after the death of the injured, case was converted under section 103 BNS. 5. He further submitted that from the FIR and the statement of the informant it reflects that he himself could not witness the real incident but inspite of that in the statement recorded under section 180 BNSS he gave photographic description of the incident and stated that co-accused Viru gave a blow from the butt of the spade on the head of the deceased. 6. He further submitted that however, from the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects that witnesses Sarvesh Trivedi, Sudesh Trivedi and Upendra Trivedi were also at the spot alongwith the deceased and they anyhow saved themselves. 7. He further submitted that when the statements of above witnesses were recorded then they also attributed the specific role of causing injury to the co-accused Viru however, they further stated that applicant and two others were having wooden sticks. 8. He further submitted that from the post mortem report, however, it reflects that deceased sustained as many as nine injuries but as per the autopsy report, he died due to head injury and as role of causing head injury has been attributed by the witnesses to co- accused Viru, therefore, applicant cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased. 9. He further submitted that even from the material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant was either having common intention or common object to commit the murder of the deceased and it appears to be a case of over implication. 10. He further submitted that applicant was not having any motive to commit the murder of the deceased and therefore, there was no occasion for him to participate in the instant matter. 11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.11.2024. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the statements of the eye witnesses, it is apparent that applicant equally participated in the incident and he through wooden sticks made assault upon the deceased and from the post mortem report, it reflects that he sustained as many an nine injuries and considering the post mortem report of the deceased, it cannot be said that applicant was not having any common intention/common object to commit the murder of the deceased and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. It is a case of day light murder in which brother of the informant was murdered and as per the eye witnesses, applicant was having wooden stick in his hand and he also made assault upon the deceased. 15. However, from the statements of the witnesses it reflects that specific role of causing head injury has been assigned to the co- accused Viru and as per the autopsy surgeon deceased died due to head injury but from his autopsy report, it reflects that he sustained as many as ten injuries and number of injuries were on occipital region and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that all these injuries were sustained by him due to the assault made by co- accused Viru. 16. Further, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and other accused persons and post mortem report of the deceased, argument advanced by learned counsel for the informant that applicant was also having common object / common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected, at this stage. 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 :- 28.2.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad