Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77395 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13815 of 2025 Applicant :- Bablu Alias Jitendra Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Giri Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. None appeared on behalf of informant even in revised call. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 472 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 352, 351(2), 109, 103(1), 324(4) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR but on the basis of false allegation, he has been roped in the present matter along with others. 5. He further submitted that it is a case, in which, however, as per prosecution, two persons sustained injuries and one person died but injury report of only one injured-Shahid is on record, therefore, it is a case, in which, one person sustained injury and one person died. 6. He further submitted that injured- Sahid made only general allegation to all accused including co-accused Sunil Rana and co- accused Sunil Rana has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7714 of 2025 and as per statement of injured Sahid, case of applicant is at par with him. 7. He further submitted that, however, when the statements of another alleged injured, Harsit and eye-witness Adnan were recorded then they stated that applicant was having rod in his hand and he also made assault upon the deceased but they specifically stated that co-accused Akku was having knife and he caused knife injury to the deceased and injured Sahid and, therefore, role of causing knife injury to the deceased and injured has been specifically assigned by these witnesses to co-accused Akku. 8. He further submitted that, however, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained as many as nine injuries but he sustained number of incised wounds and stabbed wounds and he died due to injuries caused by sharp edged weapon, therefore, it reflects co-accused Akku was responsible for his death. 9. He further submitted that even injury report of injured Sahid suggests that he sustained injury caused by knife, which was specifically attributed to co-accused Akku, therefore, it reflects due to injury caused by applicant deceased did not die and applicant did not cause any injury to the injured Sahid. 10. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 01.11.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Sunil Rana as according to Harsith, the injured witness and eye-witness Adnan, he only caught hold the deceased and he was not having any weapon in his hand while there is specific allegation against the applicant that he was having rod in his hand and he also caused injury through his weapon to the deceased. 12. He further submitted that from the post-mortem report of the deceased, it reflects, he sustained as many as nine injuries, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was not having any common object to cause death of the deceased. 13. He further submitted that it is a case, in which, as many as 9-10 persons after entering in the house of the informant made assault and in the incident, one person died and one person sustained serious injuries, therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail. 14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. Applicant is named in the FIR along with others and as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and others, one person died and two persons sustained injuries but it reflects, injury report of only one injured Sahid is on record. 16. From the record, it also reflects that, however, injured Sahid assigned only general allegation to all the accused but when statements of eye-witness Adnan and alleged injured witness Harshit were recorded then they stated that applicant and others were having blunt object and applicant was having iron rod and they also made assault upon the deceased, although, they specifically assigned the role of causing knife injuries to the deceased to co-accused Akku. 17. Further, however, it reflects from the post-mortem report that deceased died due to injuries caused by knife but it also reflects, deceased sustained as many as nine injuries including number of injuries, which were caused by blunt object, therefore, considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned AGA that applicant was also having common object to eliminate the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 18. Further, however, co-accused Sunil Rana has been released on bail by this Court and as per statement of injured Sahid, case of applicant is at par with him as only general role has been assigned by injured Sahid to all the accused but from the statements of two eye-witnesses Harsith and Adnan, it reflects, they attributed only role of catching hold to co-accused Sunil Rana and, according to them, he was not having even any weapon in his hand, therefore, in view of this Court, case of applicant is not at par with him rather case of applicant is quite distinguishable from him. 19. Further, the manner of incident appears to be quite alarming and neither applicant could not bring any good reason for his false implication nor learned counsel for the applicant could bring any good reason to disbelieve the statements of alleged eye-witnesses. 20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 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 :- 12.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad