HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21618 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Singh learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Nand Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire material available on record. 2. The applicant-Chiddu Yadav has filed the instant bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.325 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kulpahad, District Mahoba, during the pendency of the trial. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 26.10.2024 at about 2:00 P.M. the informant's brother namely, Amit went to harvest the peanuts crop and after loading the same on a tractor was returning home on a motor cycle along with his worker namely, Sandeep at about 4:45 P.M. when his brother reached near Bundelkhand Degree College, villager namely Chiddu (applicant) got his motor cycle stopped and demanded money for liquor. When his brother refused, the applicant several times assaulted upon him with axe on his head and face and he fallen down and to save him, Sandeep also sustained injury over his hand, immediately he was taken to C.H.C. Kulpahad, where he was declared dead. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Prakash Sharma, Priyanka Devi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nand Kishor Mishra Chhiddu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to occurred at about 16:45 hours on 26.10.2024 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on the same day at about 22:28 hours without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. She further submits that the deceased in fact, died due to road accident with his motor cycle and taking undue advantage of the same, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and to demonstrate the same, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the technical report of the accidental motor cycle Bullet bearing registration no. UP95M0802. Learned counsel further argued that the informant is not an eye-witness to the incident and therefore the prosecution story cannot be believed. Learned counsel also argued that the applicant is aged about 60 years and he has no concerned with the alleged incident and that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 29.12.2024. It is thus contended that the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that that statement of the informant as well as injured Sandeep recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S., and their version corroborates the prosecution story. He next submits that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. BAIL No. 21618 of 2025 2 6. Perusal of the record shows that the injured Sandeep was with the deceased. Injured Sandeep has specifically stated in his statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., that the applicant demanded money for liquor from the deceased and when the same was refused, the applicant assaulted with axe upon him several times over his head and face. The manner in which the incident has been described by the injured also corroborates with ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased in the post mortem report, which are six in numbers and is quoted below:- (1) Lacerated wound of 8 c.m. X 3 c.m. X brain cavity deep present horizontally over left eye-brow with underlying fracture of bone present. (2) Lacerated wound of 7 c.m. X 3 c.m. X arbital cavity deep present over left eye with underlying fracture bone present with eye ball lacerated. (3) Lacerated wound of 8 c.m. X 2 c.m. x bone deep present on left side lower lip with underlying fracture of lower mandible bone present with laceration of tongue of about 4 c.m. present. (4) Lacerated wound of 12 c.m. X 2 c.m. X bone deep present on left side temporo occipital region head with underlying fracture of bone present. (5) Lacerated wound of 8 c.m. X 2.m. X bone deep present on mid of occipital region of heard with underlying fracture of bone present. (6) Lacerated wound of 8 c.m. X 3 c.m. X muscle deep present on right side mid of abdomen 3 c.m. above umbilicus. 7. Thus, it is apparent from the ante mortem injury that the injuries were caused by axe and that axe has been recovered from the pointing of the applicant. Furthermore motive is also apparent to the effect that the applicant has demanded money for liquor and on denial by the deceased, being annoyed with the same, the applicant has assaulted several times upon the BAIL No. 21618 of 2025 3 deceased with axe on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was declared dead. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Surinder Singh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) reported in 2021 (0) SCC 718, which pertains to conviction of appellant under Section 307 I.P.C., and Section 27 Arms Act in which Hon'ble Apex Court considered two questions (A) Whether the High Court erred in maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 307 I.P.C.,? (B) Whether the conviction of appellant under Section 27 of Arms Act is sustainable? The aforesaid authority has no applicability in the present case as the matter pertains to registration of the F.I.R., under Section 103(1) of B.N.S.S. and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that offence under Section 109 of B.N.S.S. has been been committed. 8. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. September 17, 2025 S.Ali BAIL No. 21618 of 2025 4 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad