Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41379 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9461 of 2025 Applicant :- Ratan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Babu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Shri Punya Sheel Pandey, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vijay Babu, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 125 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.2.2024 against the applicant and six others and according to the FIR applicant and other accused persons made assault and due to the assault made by them one person died and four persons sustained injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false, general and omnibus allegations, applicant has been made accused in the FIR of the present case. 6. He further submitted that however, some eye witnesses in their statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant caused injury to one of the injured and deceased but merely on this basis, it cannot be said that he involved in the present crime. 7. He further submitted that as in the FIR only general role has been assigned and as many as 7 accused persons were made accused, therefore, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication. 8. He further submitted that however bail applications of three accused Ratiram, Devraj and Satveer have been dismissed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from them as on their pointing out one wooden stick was also recovered which alleged to have been used in the crime and there is no allegation that either on the pointing out of the applicant or from his possession any weapon was recovered. 9. He further submitted that however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 10. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 25.2.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant alongwith six others made assault and due to the assault made by them one person died and four persons sustained injuries and therefore, it appears applicant was having common object to commit crime. 12. They further submitted that bail application of three co-accused have already been dismissed by this Court and as far as incident of assault is concerned, case of applicant at par with them. 13. They next submitted that therefore, considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and injury sustained by the injured and deceased, applicant should not be released on bail. 14. . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, in the FIR only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant but from the statement of the eye witness it reflects that they assigned specific role to the applicant for causing injury to the deceased and one of the injured. 16. Further bail application of three co-accused Ratiram, Devraj and Satveer have been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and however, it appears on their pointing out weapons used in the crime (wooden sticks) were recovered but as far as allegation with regard to the incident of assault is concerned, allegation against them and the applicant are similar. 17. Further, however, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year but in view of this Court, there must be some balance between period of incarceration suffered by an accused and nature of allegation levelled against him coupled with the punishment provided for the alleged offence and considering this in my view merely due to long incarceration of about one year, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail, at this stage. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. 19. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 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 :- 21.3.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad