HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10010 of 2025 Along with : 1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10429 of 2025: Prabhakar Mishra Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant by Sri B.K. Singh is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri B.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant. 3. The applicants, namely, Diwakar Mishra & Prabhakar Mishra seek enlargement on bail in FIR No.0167 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 109(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Police Station Khandasa, District Ayodhya. 4. In terms of the FIR lodged on 21.07.2025 at 4:34 PM, it was alleged that the applicants, who were the Pattedar of the informant, came at about 11:00 (night) on 20.07.2025 armed with Lathi-Danda etc. in Bolero vehicle and started causing injuries. The family members of the informant could not understand anything and started running here and there and the father of the informant running towards the roadside, the applicants with Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishan Baghel, Deepti Singh, Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Diwakar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) an intention to kill him ran over the vehicle on him which resulted in his death. It was also alleged that when the vehicle ran over, his legs got injured very badly and other injuries were also received, which subsequently resulted in death. 5. In the light of the said allegation, the Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the postmortem report, which indicates five injuries on the body of the deceased, which includes the contusion injury on the back of the head and left lower abdomen and the chest and abrasion on left shoulder. The Counsel for the applicant further argues that the vehicle did not belong to the applicant as is evident from the registration certificate of the motor vehicle, which was owned by one of Ramdeen and on whose application, the vehicle in question was got released. He further argues that it was a case of accidental death and not an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS. 6. The Counsel for the informant Sri B.K. Singh, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the bail prayer and draws my attention to the fact that earlier in between the same party, a dispute had occurred, for which, a Challani Report dated 15.07.2025 was filed under Sections 170, 126, 135 BNSS and in furtherance of the said, the alleged offence was committed. It is further argued that the testimony of two eyewitnesses are also on record, which are in consonance with the allegations levelled in the FIR and after considering the statements, it cannot be termed as an accidental case as it was done in premeditated intent and thus, considering the gravity of the offence that a person aged about 70 years have been killed, no case for bail is made out. 7. Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the bail prayer. 8. The allegation in the FIR that the applicants came armed with Lathi- Danda etc. in a vehicle and started beating up the family members and when the father of the informant ran towards the roadside, the applicants ran over the vehicle with an intent to kill him, which fact has not fortified by the postmortem report, which only indicates one injury on the ankle joint, which is the cause of death. Although, prima facie, it cannot be a case of accidental death simpliciter as in terms of the site plan, the BAIL No. 10010 of 2025 2 incident took place just outside the house of the deceased as is proposed by the Counsel for the applicant. 9. Considering the fact that the deceased died on account of the injuries inflicted by the vehicle in front of his house, prima faice, the argument of the Counsel for the applicant to suggest that it is case of accidental death cannot be sustained. In view thereof, the bail application is rejected. 10. The trial court is directed to record the statement of the doctor within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The S.P., Faizabad/ Ayodhya is directed to ensure that the doctor is produced before the trial court for recording his statement. 12. The application would be at liberty to revive his bail after recording the statement of the doctor. December 5, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 10010 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench