Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31361 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6521 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandan Alias Abhishek Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this application, applicant-Chandan alias Abhishek Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 403 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that complainant/informant-Sunil Kumar who is brother of deceased-Rakesh Kumar, lodged a first information report on 17.09.2024 with regard to an incident which took place on 16.09.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 103(1), 115(2) of B.N.S., 2023 against applicant-Chandan making allegations inter alia that on 16.09.2024 at about 9.30 P.M., he along with his brother Rakesh and co- villager Chandan arranged refreshment near submersible situated on road side of the village. After refreshment, chandan asked his brother for key of the motorcycle, then his brother told that it seems that key is lost, on which Chandan started quarrelling with his brother. When he tried to pacify them, he also got hurt. Thereafter, on being reached near Balrampur crossing, Chandan killed his brother- Rakesh by hitting him with sticks and bricks. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the incident has not taken place in a pre-planned manner. It is a case of sudden provocation. Referring the statement under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. of the informant, it is next submitted that it appears that the informant is not an eye- witness of the incident. The F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of eight hours. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of money dispute between the parties concerned. It is also argued that though the complainant, in his statement, has stated inter alia that he had also received injury caused by the applicant on his left hand, whereas he was not medically examined and no injury was found on his body which also indicate that complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 17.09.2024 having no criminal history to his credit, may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that it is a case of direct evidence. The murder of the deceased took place in a pre-planned manner, because in the incident the applicant had served liquor to the complainant and the deceased. it is also pointed out that applicant is sole accused in this case and specific role of committing murder of the deceased-Rakesh has been assigned to him by assaulting with sticks and bricks on 16.09.2024 and on the next day i.e. on 17.09.2024, on the pointing out of the applicant weapon of crime has also been recovered. The reference of said recovery of weapon has been recorded by the investigating officer in C.D. No. 1. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant did not receive any injury in the said incident is concerned, it is pointed out that the complainant was medically examined on 17.09.2024 in a government hospital. The M.L.C. number of his examination is 06872. In the medical examination report of the complainant, an injury has been found on his left hand, which corroborated the prosecution case regarding his presence at the spot. It is also pointed out that the prosecution case is also corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased, wherein three injuries have been found on the body of the deceased and cause of death of the deceased has been shown as ante-mortem head injury. The offence is heinous in nature, hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant is the sole accused and specific role of causing injury to the deceased has been attributed to the applicant, whereby he died. Recovery of weapon of crime has also been made from the possession of the applicant. With regard to the incident which took place on 16.09.2024 at about 21.30 hours, F.I.R. was promptly lodged on 17.09.2024 at 05.07 O'clock, hence it cannot be said that there was undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. The complainant is injured eye-witness. It is well settled that the statement of injured eye-witness cannot be lightly brushed aside at the pre-trial stage. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad