Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84051 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15057 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyamu @ Bheem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 352, 332-A, 351(3), 103(1) and 109(1) BNS, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.11.2024 at about 00.48 hours against the applicant and five others and according to the FIR on 31.10.2024 at about 6.00 PM in the evening applicant and other accused after entering into the house of the informant made assault through axe and 'farsa' and due to assault made by them father, mother and brother of the informant sustained injuries and thereafter they threw acid upon his mother due to which she sustained injuries and father of the informant subsequently died during treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however it is a case in which from the side of the informant two persons sustained injuries and one person died but actually informant was the real aggressor and due to assault made by them from the side of applicant also three persons including applicant sustained injuries and their injuries have been annexed along with the instant bail application. 5. He further submits that however, from the FIR it reflects that accused persons also threw acid upon the mother of the informant but her injuries suggests that she did not sustain any acid injury and this fact shows entire prosecution story is based on false facts. 6. He further submits that however in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused but when during investigation statements of witnesses were recorded then they tried to distinguish the case of the applicant by stating that applicant caused injuries to the deceased but their statements do not appear to be convincing so far as role assigned to applicant is concerned. 7. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 02.11.2024, i..e, for the last more than six months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the principal accused, who by causing head injuries to the deceased, committed his murder and this fact is evident from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation but they could not dispute the fact that only general role has been assigned to all the accused in the FIR. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that in the alleged incident from the side of applicant also three persons sustained injuries including applicant himself. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, from the statements of the witnesses including statements of the injured witnesses recorded during investigation it reflects that however, they stated that all the accused made assault upon the deceased but they further stated that applicant caused head injuries to the deceased by using back side of axe but prima facie their statements, so far as the role attributed to applicant is concerned appears to be unconvincing. Further, in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused. 12. Further, from the FIR it reflects that mother of the informant sustained acid injuries but her medical report suggests that she sustained injuries by hard and blunt object and it could not be reflected that she also sustained acid injuries and this fact casts doubt on the prosecution case. 13. Further, from the record it reflects that from the side of applicant also three persons sustained injuries including applicant and considering this fact the possibility of free fight cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 2.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant-Shyamu @ Bheem 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 20.5.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad