Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29930 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7294 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiv Singh @ Satta Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Rishi Kesh Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh and Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 439 of 2024, under Sections 105, 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and three others and according to the FIR on 20.12.2024 at about 3.30 PM in the afternoon on the call of applicant and others son of informant had gone from his house and thereafter applicant and other accused made assault upon him due to which he sustained injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 110, 115(2), 352 B.N.S. but after the death of the injured i.e. son of the informant case was converted under Section 105 B.N.S. 6. He further submits, as per FIR and the first statement of the informant incident occurred on 20.12.2024 but during investigation when Investigating Officer made subsequent inquiry from her then she stated that actually incident occurred on 18.12.2024 and this fact clearly suggests that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 7. He further submits, even FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.12.2024 i.e. after five days from the date of incident as disclosed by the informant in her subsequent statement and even after three days from the date of alleged incident which was disclosed by the informant in the FIR, therefore, there is delay in lodgment of the FIR. He further submits, even from the entire material it could not be reflected that any body could witness the real incident. 8. He further submits, post mortem suggests that deceased sustained one traumatic swelling on his vertebra and considering the fact that due to the fracture of vertebra he died, present case does not travel beyond section 105(II) B.N.S. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.12.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant except the fact that apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but he fairly conceded, that case relates to minor offences. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per FIR on 20.12.2024 applicant and other co- accused made assault due to which son of the informant sustained injuries but subsequently during investigation in her second statement informant stated that actually incident occurred on 18.12.2024 and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire allegation leveled against the applicant is false, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, from the entire material available on record it could not be reflected that anyone could see the incident and it appears no one could see the real incident. 14. Further, from the post mortem report it reflects that deceased sustained only one injury on his vertebra and due to the fracture of vertebra he died and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if the allegations of assault is accepted then also it cannot be said that applicant and other accused were having intention to cause death of the deceased, cannot be ruled out. 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.12.2024. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant - Shiv Singh @ Satta Thakur 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 3.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad