Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68290 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5889 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Padmakar Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the infomrant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Behat, District- Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR and as per allegation, applicant and co-accused Dileep by making assault through pipe of iron upon the deceased committed his murder but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that co-accused Dileep has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 214 of 2025 and as far as allegation made in the FIR is concerned, case of applicant is at par with him. 5. He further submitted that, however, during investigation I.O. recorded the statements of eye-witnesses Ramesh and Chhoti and they stated that applicant caused head injury to the deceased but their statements do not appear to be convincing and there are material contradictions in the story narrated by these witnesses and story narrated in the FIR. 6. He further submitted that even from the post-mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained only one injury and therefore, it appears, even applicant was noy having any intention to cause death of the deceased. 7. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant, iron pipe, which allegedly used in the crime, was recovered but entire recovery is false and baseless. He further submitted that considering the fact that iron pipe is readily and commonly available, no reliance can be placed on such recovery. 8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 18.09.2024 i.e. for last more than 6 months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per independent witness Ramesh and Chhoti, applicant was the person, who caused head injury to the deceased but could not dispute the fact that their statements are contrary with the version of FIR and as per FIR, applicant and co-accused Dileep caused injury to the deceased and co-accused Dileep has already been released on bail. They further could not dispute the fact that even from the post- mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained only one injury. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased by causing head injury to him and from perusal of the FIR, it reflects the role of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant and co- accused Dileep and co-accused Dileep has already been released on bail by this Court. 12. Further, however, from the statement of two alleged eye- witnesses, Ramesh and Chhoti, it reflects they attributed the role of causing head injury to the deceased through iron pipe to the applicant but there are material contradictions in their statements and in the story narrated in the FIR. 13. Further, even from the post-mortem report, it reflects deceased sustained only single injury, and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it cannot be said that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the deceased, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, however, as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant, iron pipe was also recovered, which was allegedly used in the crime, but considering the fact that iron pipe is readily and commonly available, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also cannot be completely ruled out. 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 18.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Jitendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 20. 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 :- 30.4.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad