HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11965 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Shri S.K. Pal and Dr. Manish, learned counsel(s) for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.92 of 2024, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Nagram, District Lucknow. 3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that husband of the informant was coming from the agricultural fields when the persons named in the FIR, who are five in number, caused injuries with the use of Kulhadi and other sharp edged instrument which resulted in injuries and subsequent death of the husband of the informant. 4. In the light of the said FIR, submission of learned counsel counsel for the applicant is that one of the eyewitnesses who is daughter of the deceased has assigned general role to all the co-accused as is evident from the statement which in on record at Page 46. The said eyewitness is aged about 11 years. 5. It is further argued that the applicant had also sustained stitched wound on the left forearm as is evident from Annexure - 3 for which no explanation has been given by any of the witnesses. It is argued that the said injury is not possible if the allegations are treated to be correct. It is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Prakash, Dinesh Kumar Pal, Jyoti Sharma, Manish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Shabnam Khan, Shailesh Kumar Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hari Ram .....Applicant(s) The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through, The Principal Secretary Home Department .....Opposite Party(s) further argued that co-accused has been enlarged on bail. 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposed the bail application by arguing that in terms of the specific statement of the informant as well as the eyewitness who is daughter of the deceased aged about 22 years, the specific role of attacking with a Kulhadi was assigned to the applicant and the postmortem report clearly corroborates the said allegation which is also the cause of death. In the light of the said, it is argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, argues that even the charge has not been framed and the applicant is in custody since 25.04.2024. 8. Trial Court report indicates that charge has not been framed so far. 9. Considering the fact that specific allegation of use of Kulhadi was assigned to the applicant by the informant as well as the eyewitness and the nature of the injuries in the postmortem report corroborates the allegation and the fact that the said offence was committed at a place visible to all being a heinous offence, no good ground for bail is made out. 10. Present bail application is accordingly rejected. 11. Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 25.04.2024 and charge has not been framed till date, it is directed that the charge shall be framed within a period of four weeks and the trial shall commence and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. The applicant would be entitled to revive his bail plea after four weeks, if so advised, in accordance with law. October 27, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 11965 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench