HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5459 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddarth Mishra the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D. K. Mishra the counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.32 of 2025 under section 109(1) BNS, 351(3)BNS, 103(1) BNS, P.S. Cantt, District Ayodhya. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that two accused named in the FIR, including the applicant, had enmity with the informant's brother and his cousin brother, and with a view to kill the deceased, the applicant, who was driving the vehicle in question, came and deliberately caused the accident, which resulted in the death of both persons. The FIR was lodged on 08/02/2025 at about 10 a.m. The incident is said to have occurred on 07/02/2025. 4. In light of the said allegations, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that it was a case of mere accident. In support of this contention, my attention is drawn to the inquest report, in which the informant of the FIR was also present, where a prima-facie view was formed that it was an accidental death. The applicant's counsel further draws my attention to the fact that both deceased were admitted in the hospital showing it to be a case of accidental death. My attention is also drawn to the post-mortem report, which indicates the presence of as many as six injuries on the body of deceased No.1 which included swelling on the scalp and contusion on the back of the chest, and abdomen as well as injuries sustained by deceased Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Sinha, Arpan Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Firoz Ahmad Khan Arpit Dubey Alias Ankit .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) No.2, which included stitch wounds on the head and an abraded contusion of the chest. The admission of the deceased to the hospital is on record as Annexure 15, which prima-facie shows the case of accidental death. 5. My attention is also drawn to the inspection done with regard to the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, which indicates that apart from the body of the vehicle, no other substantial defect was noticed in the vehicle. 6. As regards the criminal antecedents, the counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has six criminal antecedents, which are duly disclosed in paragraph 67 of the bail application, which mainly include cases under sections 419 and 420. He thus, argues that the applicant, who is in custody since 08/02/2025, is entitled to bail. 7. The counsel for the informant and the learned AGA oppose the bail application by arguing that apart from the fact that two persons were deliberately killed, an effort was also made to show the whole incident as an accident, which is clear from the manner in which both deceased suffered the injuries, which is not possible because of an accident. The learned AGA states that the presence of road accident in the admission records is prima- facie, an error. It is further argued that, apart from the incident in question, threats have also been issued at the instance of the applicant and the family of the informant were beaten when efforts to admit the deceased were made. He thus argues that, considering the gravity of the offense, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. It is admitted at the bar that the co-accused, who was not driving the vehicle, has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Bail Application No.6401 of 2025. 9. Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, prima facie, in terms of the FIR, allegations for deliberately causing the accident with a view to kill were levelled. However, the same are at variance to the inquest report. The clinching factor in the present application is the post- mortem report, which indicates the presence of injuries. Prima facie, in the case of a normal accident, the nature of the injuries cannot be what is reflected in the post-mortem report. 10. Considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground for bail is made BAIL No. 5459 of 2025 2 out. The bail application is rejected. 11. The applicant, however, would be at liberty to revive the bail plea after the statement of the medical doctor is recorded. 12. The trial court is directed to take steps for expeditiously framing the charge and recording the statement of the doctor. The trial court shall ensure that the charge is framed and the statement is recorded positively within a period of six months. November 18, 2025 VNP/- BAIL No. 5459 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench