Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86927 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8530 of 2025 Applicant :- Jahangir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Shivam Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Shanker Pandey Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This is the 4th bail application at the instance of the applicant, Jahangir seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 (Criminal Case No. 5465 of 2022), under Sections 323, 326 & 504 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur. As per the allegations in the FIR giving rise to the present bail application, the dispute is between two brothers regarding the share of an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- being the consideration for leasing out joint agricultural holdings to Chaudhary Brick field (Brickklin) received for excavating mud from the field for the purposes of brick making. The applicant is accused of not parting with the share of his brother (first informant) and for causing grievous injuries to the body of the informant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.09.2022 and 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 34442 of 2022 and 56350 of 2022. The 3rd bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19666 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the FIR, allegations of causing grievous injury to the injured was alleged upon the applicant and his son and co-accused Zuber. However, during the course of investigation , the name of Zubair was dropped and chargesheet was filed only against the applicant. The chargesheet against the applicant was filed on 08.07.2022 and cognizance of the same was taken on 01.09.2022. The charges against the applicant were framed on 28.09.2022 and thereafter the dates were fixed for evidence. The PW1 was being examined and in the midst of the cross examination, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the non-chargesheeted accused, namely, Zubair. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and Zubair has also been summoned to face trial for the offence alleged in the FIR. It is also argued that owing to the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the remaining cross examination of the P.W.1 could not be completed. It is also argued that there is material contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses Mehboob, son of Muzaffar Hasan, Mehboob son of Gulzar and Amzad. While Mehboob son of Muzaffar Hasan and Mehboob son of Gulzar have assigned the role of causing grievous injuries to both the applicant and his son Zubair attributing lathi, danda in their hands, Amzad has assigned the role only to the applicant. The contradictions in the statement demolish the prosecuting story set up in the FIR. Further, the PW1 has deposed before the trial court that the applicant was armed with a knife in his hand while the co-accused Zubair was armed with iron rod but none of the alleged eye witness have attributed the aforesaid weapons to the applicant or the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. which provides that in a case triable by Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person, if in custody during whole of the said period be released on bail. Pressing the said provision, learned counsel for the applicant argues that chargesheet was filed on 08.07.2022. Cognizance has been taken on 01.09.2022. Formal charges against the applicant were framed on 28.09.2022 and 12.10.2022 was fixed for taking evidence. More than 60 days have gone by since 12.10.2022 and the applicant who is admittedly incarcerated in jail since 23.6.2022 is entitled to be released on bail. The criminal history of the applicant of four other cases has been duly explained in para 52 of the bail application. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Jahangir, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Anjali Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad