Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84398 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12018 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkumar @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hansraj,Mahadeo Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Singh,G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4038 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Both these connected matters arose from the same FIR and, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Supplementary affidavits filed by applicants are taken on record. 3. Heard Sri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant- Rajkumar @ Raju, Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant-Arvind Rathi, Sri Ankur Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 315 BNS, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 5. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, applicant-Raj Kumar has been made accused in the present matter and thereafter when the statements of eye-witnesses were recorded then they disclosed the name of applicant-Arvind Rathi but neither from the CCTV footage nor from the statements of the eye-witnesses it could be reflected that applicants were having any intention to cause death of the deceased. 6. They further submitted that from the CCTV footage, it reflects, deceased was under deep intoxication and he was the person, who firstly started making assault upon applicant-Raj Kumar and thereafter quarrel took place between both the sides. 7. They further submitted that, however, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained number of injuries but as deceased used to consume liquor and very often, he used to create scenes, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that in some other manner, he sustained these injuries. They further submitted that number of injuries shown in the post-mortem report do not tally with the CCTV footage and statements of the eye-witnesses. 8. They further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 12.12.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from perusal of post-mortem report of the deceased, it reflects, he sustained as many as 12 injuries, therefore, it is quite apparent that he was badly beaten but they could not dispute the fact that from the CCTV footage and statements of the eye-witnesses, it reflects, deceased used to consume liquor and he was under deep intoxication on the date of incident and he was the person, who started fighting and thereafter fighting took place between deceased and applicants side. 10. They further could not dispute the fact that from entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicants were having any intention to cause death of the deceased. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicants, deceased died and post-mortem report also suggests that he sustained number of injuries but from the CCTV footage of the incident and statements of the eye-witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicants were having any intention to cause death of the deceased rather from the record, it reflects deceased used to consume liquor and on the date and time of incident, he was under deep intoxication and he started fighting. Further, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, possibility could not be ruled out that in some other manner deceased sustained these injuries. 13. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since December 2024. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicants- Rajkumar @ Raju and Arvind Rathi 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 his 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 him 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 19.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad