Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88007 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13036 of 2025 Applicant :- Nikesh Ojha Alias Jugunu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aashirwad Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Misra,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Rajbhar, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Chanra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.701 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 and 103(1) BNS, Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is named in the FIR along with as many as eight others and as per allegation due to the assault made by applicant and others four persons sustained injuries and one person died and however from the FIR it reflects that role of causing head injuries to the deceased has been specifically assigned to applicant and co- accused Ankit but when the statements of the injured Aman Ojha, Abhinav Ojha and Smt. Seema Ojha were recorded during investigation then they attributed specific role of causing head injuries to the deceased to co-accused Ankit Ojha. He next submits that considering their statements the case of applicant appears to be at par with other co-accused including co-accused Chandrama Ojha and Sanjay Ojha and both the above named co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. 4. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 8.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which due to assault made by applicant and others four persons sustained injuries and one person died and in the FIR and in the statement of the informant there is specific allegation that applicant and co-accused Ankit caused head injuries to the deceased by hard and blunt object but they could not dispute the fact that when statements of injured witnesses Aman Ojha, Abhinav Ojha and Smt. Seema Ojha were recorded then they assigned general role to all the accused except co-accused Ankit and according to them co-accused Ankit was the person, who caused head injuries to the deceased. 6. They further could not dispute the fact that from the post mortem report it reflects that deceased died due to head injuries. 7. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Chandrama Ojha and Sanjay Ojha have already been released on bail by this Court and considering the statements of the injured witnesses Aman Ojha, Abhinav Ojha and Smt. Seema Ojha, the case of applicant is at par with them. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with eight others and as per allegation made in the FIR and in the statement of the informant recorded during investigation it appears that due to assault made by them four persons sustained injuries and one person died and applicant and co-accused Ankit caused head injuries to the deceased and the post mortem report also suggests that deceased died due to head injuries but from the statements of the injured persons Aman Ojha, Abhinav Ojha and Smt. Seema Ojha it reflects that co-accused Ankit was the person, who caused head injuries to the deceased and from their statements it reflects that case of applicant is at par with other accused including co- accused Chandrama Ojha and Sanjay Ojha except co-accused Ankit and co-accused Chandrama Ojha and Sanjay Ojha have already been released on bail by this Court. 10. 10. Further, applicant is not having previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 8.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view , applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant-Nikesh Ojha @ Jugunu 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 applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant 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 applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 14. 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 applicant. 15. 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 :- 23.5.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad