HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13003 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. 2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Mohyit @ Mohit, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station- Karhal, District- Mainpuri. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on 28.03.2025. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 25.08.2022, the applicant as well as other co-accused persons caused injuries to son of the first informant namely Devendra by knife and ran away from spot. The first informant has seen the incident. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 02.09.2020. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured person namely Devendra was taken to Saifai Hospital, where he was declared dead. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained two incised Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Pal Singh, Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohyit @ Mohit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) wounds and one lacerated wound and the cause of death reported is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injury. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. The alleged incident has been taken place in the different manner and the same is not supporting the prosecution version. There are several contradictions in the statements of Deepanshu and Ram Shankar, which have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident to support the prosecution version and the eyewitnesses are closed relatives of the first informant. It is next submitted that after completing investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet dated 03.10.2020 against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Sections 302, 201 IPC. It is further submitted that 15 witnesses have been shown in the charge sheet but till now only six witness have been examined before the trial court. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant and the recovery made from the applicant is planted one and the allegations made against the applicant is wholly vague, false and frivolous. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an BAIL No. 13003 of 2025 2 opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. 9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. August 28, 2025 v.k.updh. BAIL No. 13003 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad