HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10624 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant along with his brother, Nitin Prakash (deceased) went to a birthday party of Monu Ghosh on 22.05.2024 at about 9:30 P.M. There, Ritik and his companions indulged in a fight with them due to some old dispute. In that fight, it is alleged that Rithik and other co-accused persons committed the murder of the informant's brother by assaulting him with a brick. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the complainant, who is an eye- witness of the alleged incident, has not named co-accused persons in the F.I.R. On the next date, the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he introduced four other persons along with named persons, including the present applicant. In his statement, the complainant assigned the role of causing injury to the deceased by kicks and fists to the co-accused persons. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the role of pushing the deceased on the floor has been assigned to the present applicant. On the contrary, Usha Devi, the mother of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shishir Pradhan, Faiqa Khan, Gyanendra Pratap Singh Chuahan, Lalit Mohan Joshi, Uday Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Vishal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) deceased, who is also an eye-witness of the alleged incident, has assigned the brick in the hand of co-accused, Shivraj and role of beating the deceased with kicks and fists to the co-accused, Rithik and the present applicant. Thus, in view of the two contradictory statements of the eye- witnesses of the alleged incident, it is submitted that there is, in fact, no reliable eye-witness to the occurrence and that no one has actually seen it. Both the prosecution witnesses have narrated different stories. Even otherwise, no motive has been attributed to the present applicant; if any motive exists, it is with the main named accused. No weapon has been assigned to the present applicant, except for the allegation regarding a brick. The incident, as alleged in the admitted case of the prosecution, took place at a party of young boys and the dispute arose all of a sudden, without any intention or preparation, leaving no time to cool down. The charge sheet has been filed. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which have been explained in para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the records. A perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased shows that the cause of death is due to antemortem head injury. The deceased had suffered six antemortem injuries. On due consideration of the variance in the statements of two eye- witnesses in the prosecution case, the explanation of the criminal history by the applicant, the prima facie improvement made in the prosecution case and the period of incarceration, as the applicant is in jail since 12.06.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Vishal involved in Case Crime No.57 of 2024, under Sections 302, 147 and 149 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District- Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and BAIL No. 10624 of 2024 2 two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). September 24, 2025 Mahesh BAIL No. 10624 of 2024 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench