Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72918 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6823 of 2025 Applicant :- Kishori Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Patel,Neeraj Singh Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saroj Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saroj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 525 of 2024, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 109, 115(2), 352, 125, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is however named in the FIR but from the FIR it reflects, role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned to him and as per FIR, co-accused Rajan, Rajat and Tinku inflicted knife injuries to the deceased. 5. He next submits, however, when the statements of two eye witnesses Kunal and Abhishek were recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer then they stated that applicant and other accused caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Rajan inflicted knife injuries to the deceased, therefore, there are contradiction in the version of the FIR and the statements of the eye witnesses. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, informant also claimed himself to be the eye witness. 6. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer also procured the footage of CCTV of the incident details of which has been annexed at page-38 of the paper-book and from the details of CCTV it reflects, applicant was not even present at spot, therefore, it reflects, on the basis of false allegation only due to earlier incident he has been made accused in the present matter. 7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three case out of which one case relates to the present case and remaining two cases relate to minor offences and his entire criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application. 8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 04.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicant is the head of the family and enmity between both sides are admitted and before the incident applicant and others after entering in the house of the informant made assault but they could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is named in the FIR but informant who claimed himself to be one of eye witness, in the FIR categorically mentioned that co-accused Rajan, Rajat and Tinku inflicted knife injuries to the deceased, however, when the statement of injured persons were recorded during investigation then they stated that applicant caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused caused injuries, therefore, even as per statements of injured witnesses applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased and there is contradiction in the FIR and statements. 12. Further, there is CCTV footage of the incident on record and from its detail, which is noted in the case diary, it also reflects, in the CCTV footage applicant was not visible. 13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three cases, out of which one case relates to the present case and remaining two cases relate to minor offences and his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application. 14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 04.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Kishori Lal 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad