Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62180 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4209 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.P.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, 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. 287 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 333, 110, 103 BNS, Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and two others and three unknown persons and according to FIR, on 31.08.2024 in the afternoon at about 12:00 hours, applicant caused head injury upon the brother of the informant and due to assault made by him and other accused, another brother of the informant, namely Khusal, also sustained injury. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 333, 110 BNS, but after the death of the injured, case was converted under Section 103 BNS. He further submits, however, specific allegation has been assigned to the applicant that he caused head injury to the deceased from spade, which is a sharp- edged weapon but from the injury report of the deceased, which was prepared before his death, it reflects, he sustained lacerated wound on his scalp, therefore, it reflects, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with others only due to previous enmity. 5. He further submitted that along with applicant, co-accused, Rajesh and Jagmohan were also made accused and both have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.01.2025 and 13.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47134 of 2024 and 3668 of 2025 respectively. 6. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case and in that case, he was convicted for three years but that case relates to the offense under Section 324 IPC 7. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 01.09.2024 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case, in which, one person died and one person sustained injury and specific allegation against the applicant is that by causing head injury to the deceased, he committed his murder, therefore, case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Rajesh and Jagmohan. 9. They further submitted that however, as per the allegation, applicant caused head injury to the deceased through spade and injury report of the deceased suggests that he sustained one lacerated wound on his scalp but lacerated wound can also be caused by spade and it is not necessary that front part of the spade must be sharp as it can be blunt. 10. They further submitted that applicant is a previous convict too, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. It is a broad daylight incident, in which, one person died and one person sustained injury and there is specific allegation against the applicant that he caused head injury to the deceased and injured witness also stated against the applicant. 13. However, as per the prosecution, applicant inflicted head injury to the deceased through spade on his head and his injury report suggests that he sustained lacerated wound but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA that front part of the spade can be blunt, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that head injury sustained by the deceased could not be caused by the spade. 14. Further, applicant appears to be a previous convict too. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 17. 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 :- 23.4.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad