Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78864 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13158 of 2025 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) BNS, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR alongwith three others but on the basis of false allegations, he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submitted that however, it is a case in which one person sustained injuries and one person died but it reflects role of causing injury to the deceased has not been attributed to the applicant and as per FIR co-accused Shamshad by causing knife injury committed his murder. 5. He further submitted that post mortem also suggests that deceased sustained only one incised wound. 6. He further submitted that however, witness Aslam is the injured of the case but it appears, his injuries were not dangerous to life as from his statement recorded under section 180 BNSS it reflects that he even refused for x-ray examination. He further submitted that however, in his statement injured Aslam stated that applicant and other co-accused caught hold the deceased and thereafter co- accused Shamshad inflicted knife injury to him but his statement with regard to the role of applicant is concerned, prima facie, appears to be false as neither informant in the FIR nor in his statement attributed the role of catching hold to the applicant and informant was also an eye witness. 7. He further submitted that even statement of the injured Aslam was recorded after 27 days and he did not sustain such injuries due to which he could not give his statement earlier. 8. He further submitted that even statement of the injured witness appears to be doubtful. 9. He further submitted that even admittedly applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased. 10. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.2.2025. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is case in which one person lost his life and one person sustained injury and injured Aslam in his statement stated that applicant and others caught hold the deceased and Shamshad caused knife injury to him but they could not dispute the fact that informant of the case was also one of the eye witness and he neither in the FIR nor in his statement recorded during investigation attributed the role of catching hold to the applicant. 12. They further could not dispute the fact that even statement of the injured Aslam was recorded after 27 days and from his statement it could not be reflected that his injuries were dangerous to life as his x-ray examination was not conducted and his injury has been healed on its own 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith three others but it reflects there is no allegation that he caused any injury to the deceased and as per allegation co-accused Shamshad was the person who inflicted knife injury to the deceased. However, from the record it reflects that in the incident Aslam also sustained injuries and when his statement was recorded then he attributed the role of catching hold to the applicant and other accused persons and according to him after that co-accused Shamshad inflicted knife injury to the deceased but his statement was recorded after 27 days. 15. Further informant of the case was also eye witness and he neither in the FIR nor his statement recorded during investigation disclosed that applicant also caught hold the deceased. 16. Further, however, it reflects injured Aslam sustained two injuries but there is no x-ray report of the injured on record and from his statement it reflects that his x-ray examination has not been conducted and his injury by the time itself has been healed. 17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.2.2025. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant-Nadeem, 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 14.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad