Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17553 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 965 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandrama Prakash Ojha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aashirwad Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Singh,G.A.,Krishna Kant Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 701 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 03.11.2024 against applicant and eight others and according to FIR, applicant and other accused persons were the collateral of the informant and on 31.10.2024 at about 10:30 p.m. in the evening they made assault through wooden stick and iron rod upon the son of the informant and during assault, co-accused Nikesh and Ankit gave blows on the head of the son of the informant through iron rod due to which, he immediately fell down and fainted. 5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that due to assault made by applicant and others, son of the informant sustained injury and he is under treatment in the hospital. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in the incident, informant and others also sustained injuries. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with eight others. He further submitted that however, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 109 BNS but after the death of son of the informant, case was converted under Section 103 BNS. 7. He further submitted that applicant never participated in the alleged incident and only being one of the collateral of the informant, he has been made accused in the present matter. 8. He further submitted that in the FIR, informant specifically attributed the role of causing injury on the head of his son to co- accused Nikesh and Ankit and in the statement recorded during investigation, he reiterated the version of the FIR. 9. He further submitted that from the statements of the injured witnesses, which have been annexed along with affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, it reflects that co-accused Ankit caused head injury to the son of the informant i.e. deceased. 10. He further submitted that from perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it reflects that he sustained only one injury on his head. He further submits, considering the statements of witnesses, it can not be said, applicant caused head injury to the deceased. 11. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.11.2024. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant also participated in the incident and in the incident, apart from the deceased, four persons also sustained injuries but could not dispute the fact that injuries sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature and deceased sustained only one injury, which has been specifically attributed to co-accused Ankit by the injured witnesses and there is no allegation that applicant caused head injury to the deceased. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. However, as per allegation, applicant and eight others made assault and due to assault made by them, son of the informant died and four persons sustained injuries but from the post-mortem report of the deceased, it reflects that he sustained only one injury on his head and from the statements of the injured witnesses, it could not be reflected, applicant caused this injury to him. From their statements, it reflects that co-accused Ankit caused injury on the head of the deceased. Further, injuries sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature. 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.11.2024. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Chandrama Prakash Ojha 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 6.2.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad