Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68369 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11624 of 2025 Applicant :- Satish And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharamdas,G.A.,Janardan Prasad Tripathi,Ruchi Kashyap Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Janardan Prasad Tripathi, 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 6 of 2025, under Sections 105, 333, 115(2), 125 BNS, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.1.2025 against the applicants and two others and according to the FIR on 1.1.2025 at about 6 p.m. in the evening applicants and other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and made assault through bricks due to which two persons sustained injuries and mother of the informant died. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations only due to previous enmity applicants have been made accused in the present matter alongwith others. 5. He further submitted that from the perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects that she sustained however, three injuries but she died due to injury no. 1 which was head injury and there is no evidence that applicant is the author of this injury. He further submitted that even only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. 6. He further submitted that even after considering the post mortem report of the deceased it could not be reflected that applicants were having any intention to cause death of the deceased. 7. He further submitted that however, as per FIR in the incident two persons also sustained injury but only injury report of injured Manisha is on record and from its perusal, it reflects, her injuries were simple in nature and were on non-vital parts. 8. He further submitted that applicants were having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence which was also lodged by the informant side. 9. He further submitted that applicants are in jail in the present matter since 2.1.2025. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that earlier informant side lodged a case against applicants and applicants due to that reason were continuously pressurizing the informant to compromise in that case and only due to that reason they made assault after entering in the house of the informant and therefore, considering this fact coupled with the fact that in the incident two persons sustained injuries and one per died, applicants should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation applicants and two others after entering in the house of the informant made assault due to which two persons sustained injuries and one person died but from perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects that she died due to head injury and there is no evidence that applicants are the author of this injury. Further record suggests that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicants. 13. Further, however, as per prosecution in the present case two persons also sustained injury but injury report of only Manisha is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that she sustained only minor injury. 14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicants are having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and it reflects, that case was also lodged by informant side. 15. Further, applicants are in jail in the present matter since 2.1.2025. 16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicants-Satish and Mamta, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. 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 applicants. 21. 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 :- 1.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad