Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74117 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7116 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhikki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Garun Pal Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 306 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 105, 115(2), 352 & 351 (3) BNS, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under section 103(1) BNS and other sections but during investigation, case was converted under section 105 BNS. 4. He further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that as many as 14 persons were made accused and therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication. He further submitted that even only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused. 5. He further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer also procured the CCTV footage of the incident but after perusing the same, it could not be reflected that applicant participated in the alleged incident of assault. 6. He further submitted that the details of the CCTV footage has been annexed at page 59 of the paper book and from its perusal it reflects accused Inder, Vijendra and Mahesh were making assault upon the informant side. 7. He further submitted that however, it is a case in which one person died and six persons sustained injuries but injuries sustained by injured admittedly were not dangerous to life. 8. He further submitted that however, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained ten injuries but number of injuries were abrasions and number of injuries were on his non vital part. 9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and he actively participated in the incident and in the incident one person died and six persons sustained injures and considering the injuries sustained by injured persons and deceased it cannot be said that it is a case of over implication. 11. However, both the counsel could not dispute the fact that only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons and from the details of the CCTV footage of the incident which was procured by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation it could not be reflected that applicant was making assault upon the deceased. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant is named in the FIR and it is a case in which one person died and six persons sustained injuries but injuries sustained by all the injured, prima facie, do not appear to be dangerous to life. 14. Further, considering the fact that in the FIR there are as many as 14 accused were named and only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15. Further, however from the post mortem report it reflects that deceased sustained as many as 10 injuries but number of injuries were abrasions and were on his non vital parts. 16. Further, even from the statements of the witnesses, it reflects that deceased also sustained injuries by a four wheeler and considering this fact at this stage, it cannot be rule out that it is not a case of accidental death. 17. Further, during investigation Investigating Officer procured a CCTV footage of the incident in which applicant was not visible and from the CCTV footage it reflects, co-accused, Inder, Vijendra and Mahesh were making assault upon the informant side. 18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2024. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant-Bhikki, 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 :- 7.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad