Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75179 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14609 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu @ Navneet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri A.K. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2024, under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Sadh, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but on the basis of false and general allegations he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith four others. 4. He further submitted that admittedly informant was not the eye witness but in spite of that she disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR and this fact suggests that applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submitted that however as per prosecution there are some eye witnesses but all the eye witnesses are close relative of the deceased and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however informant was not the eye witness but there are several eye witnesses and they in their statements categorically stated that applicant and others made assault and due to which deceased died and post mortem of the deceased suggests that he sustained as many as 21 injuries. 8. They further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but he did not explain these cases in the instant bail application and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, he should not be released on bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, it reflects that informant of the case was not the eye witness but there are several eye witnesses and they categorically stated that applicant and others badly beaten the deceased. The post mortem report also suggests that deceased sustained as many as 21 injuries. 11. Further, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of two other cases but he did not even disclose his criminal antecedents in the instant bail application. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 13. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 14. 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 :- 8.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad