Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49598 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11295 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai,Gaurav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 394 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Budhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with co-accused Mangu @ Sanjeev and Tillu @ Dheeraj and as per FIR, applicant caused spear injury to the deceased but admittedly, informant of the case was not the eye- witness. 4. He further submitted that when the statements of sons and wife of the deceased were recorded during investigation then they however, disclosed the name of the applicant and other two co- accused persons and they assigned general role to all the accused and when the statement of wife of the deceased was recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate then also she assigned only general role to all the accused but sons of the deceased namely Deepak @ Akash and Suraj in their statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate attributed the role of causing spear injury to the deceased to the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that subsequently at belated stage, only with intention to make the case of applicant more serious, role of causing spear injury has been assigned to applicant. He further submitted that no reliance can be placed on such statements. 5. He further submitted that admittedly weapon used in the crime i.e. spear has not been recovered on the pointing out of applicant rather it was recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Mangu @ Sanjeev and Tillu @ Dheeraj and both co-accused Mangu @ Sanjeev and Tillu @ Dheeraj have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 333 of 2025 and 377 of 2025 respectively. 6. He further submitted that applicant was absolutely having no motive to commit the instant crime. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 30.09.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the FIR and in the statement of the informant recorded during investigation there is specific allegation against the applicant that he caused spear injury to the deceased, however, he fairly conceded, informant was not the eye-witness. 9. Learned AGA further pointed out that however, wife and sons of the deceased in their statements recorded during investigation under Section 180 BNSS assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant but sons of the deceased in their statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate categorically stated that applicant was the person, who caused spear injury on the chest of the deceased, therefore, case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of other two co-accused persons, who were released on bail and considering the statements of sons of the deceased recorded under Section 183 BNSS, applicant should not be released on bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. From the FIR and the statement of informant recorded during investigation, it reflects, according to him, applicant was the person, who caused spear injury to the deceased but it reflects, he was not the eye-witness. 12. Record further suggests that however, sons of the deceased and his wife, who were the eye-witnesses, assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS but when the statements of sons of the deceased were recorded under Section 183 BNSS before Magistrate then they categorically stated that applicant caused spear injury to the deceased, although record also suggests that in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wife of the deceased repeated her version recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 13. Further, co-accused Mangu @ Sanjeev and Tillu @ Dheeraj have been released on bail by this Court but from their bail orders, it reflects, they have granted bail on the ground that role of causing spear injury to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. Considering the statements of the sons of the deceased recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it appears, applicant is the principal accused and his case is distinguishable from the case of above co- accused persons. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 16. 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 :- 7.4.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad