Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40361 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22282 of 2024 Applicant :- Amarpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Neetu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ram Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.502 of 2023, under Sections 323, 302, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.10.2023 against the applicant and four others and according to the FIR on 30.10.2023 at 4:30 pm, applicant came alongwith other accused persons while informant and her son were doing work on the field and applicant by causing fire arm injury to her son committed his murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation applicant caused fire arm injury to the deceased and his mother i.e. informant was the eye witness but from the inquest report which was prepared on the information given by the informant it reflects she was not even made panch witness and this fact shows that actually she was not the eye witness of the incident. 5. He further submitted that from the FIR it reflects alongwith the informant one Sagar and Ankur were also present at spot but from their statements recorded during investigation which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects that they were not the eye witnesses and therefore, it reflects that FIR is based on false and frivolous facts. 6. He further submitted that however, in the FIR co-accused Vikasu@Monu and Kapil were also made accused but during investigation, their involvement were found false and this fact again indicates that actually FIR is bogus and no reliance can be placed on such documents. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 2.11.2023 i.e. for last more than a year. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the person who caused fire arm injuries to the deceased and his mother i.e. informant was the eye witness and there is no good reason on the basis of which her testimony can be disbelieved. 9. Learned AGA further pointed out that apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of three other cases. 10. Both the counsel further submitted that therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. As per allegation applicant caused fire arm injury to the deceased due to which he died and incident has been witnessed by the informant who was his mother. 13. However, from the FIR, it reflects that as per the informant two persons Ankur and Sagar were also present at spot and from their statements, it reflects that they were arrived at the spot after the incident and further, from the inquest report, it reflects that informant was not the inquest witness and it also reflects that during investigation, involvement of two co-accused Kapil and Vikasu @ Monu were found false but in view of this Court, merely on the basis of these facts at this stage, testimony of the informant, who was mother of the deceased and was present at the spot, cannot be disbelieved. 14. 14. Further, however, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since i.e. for last more than a year but it is a case in which applicant appears to be principal accused and in view of this Court, there must be some balance between period of incarceration of an accused and nature of allegation levelled against him coupled with the punishment provided for the alleged offences and considering all these facts, in my view, in such cases like present one, merely on the ground that accused is in jail for last more than a year, he should not be released on bail. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 17. 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 :- 20.3.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad