Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72636 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5578 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandravir @ Chandra Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Narayan Gupta Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.303 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 103(1) and 61(2) BNS, Police Station Nauhjheel, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.11.2024 at about 03.00 AM and according to the FIR, on 11.11.2024 at about 9.30 PM in the night applicant called the informant and when informant arrived at his restaurant then he found that co-accused Boby and his younger brother were fighting with each other and anyhow he reconciled the matter and thereafter he sent back his brother along with his son on the motorcycle but in the meantime, younger brother of the applicant rashly hit the motorcycle from his tractor and in the accident brother of the informant, his son and son of the informant sustained injuries and subsequently brother of the informant, namely, Jal Singh died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 105 BNS and other Sections but from the perusal of the FIR prima facie it appears to be a case of accidental death. 6. He further submits that even from the FIR it is apparent that brother of the applicant, i.e., co-accused Motey alias Gajendra caused injuries to the deceased and injured persons by his tractor and there is no allegation in the FIR that applicant caused any injury to anyone but when the statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation including injured witnesses then they changed the entire prosecution version and stated that after the alleged accident the applicant also started making assault upon the injured persons and co-accused Suraj pressed the neck of the deceased. 7. 7. He further submits that even from the statements of the injured persons it reflects that role of strangulation/throttling of the deceased has been specifically attributed to co-accused Suraj. He next submits that even from their statements it reflects that at the time of incident applicant and others including informant and deceased were under intoxication. 8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.11.2024, i.e, for the last more than five months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which one person died and two persons sustained injuries and as per statement of injured persons prima facie it appears to be a case of murder. 10. They further submitted that even motorcycle of the injured persons was badly damaged by accused persons, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant and other accused persons are innocent. 11. They however could not dispute the fact that there are material contradictions in the story narrated in the FIR and in the statements of witnesses. They further could not dispute the fact that even as per statements of the witnesses co-accused Suraj was the person, who pressed the neck of the deceased. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. From the FIR of the present case prima facie it appears to be a case of accident but it reflects that during investigation when the statements of witnesses were recorded including injured witnesses then they changed the entire version of the FIR, therefore, there are material contradictions in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses. 14. Further, even from the FIR it could not be reflected that role of causing injuries either to the deceased or to the injured persons has been assigned to the applicant. 15. Further, from the statements of injured persons and other witnesses recorded during investigation it also reflects that the role of pressing neck of the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant and it has been assigned to co-accused Suraj. 16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.11..2024, i.e., for the last more than five months. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant-Chandravir @ Chandra Prakash 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 6.5.2025/SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad