Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135538 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25652 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhura Alias Durgesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Purshottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State Respondent. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 649 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.11.2022 against applicant and five others and according to the FIR on the call of co-accused Rakhi, son of the informant on 18.11.2022 at about 10.00 PM in the night had gone from his house and thereafter co- accused Deepak, Sachin, Karua @ Mahesh, Bhura (applicant) and Ram Prakash committed his murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly informant of the case was not an eye witness. He further submits, during investigation two eye witnesses were introduced by the Investigating Officer after two days and they however stated that Karua @ Mahesh and Ram Prakash made assault upon the deceased but even from their statements, it reflect, at the time of incident applicant and others were under intoxication and it appears, they made assault through kick and fist as no weapon has been assigned to any of them. He further submits, however, post mortem suggests deceased sustained as many as eight injuries but he died due to Coma as a result of head injury and there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant caused head injury. It is further submitted that on the similar footing the co-accused Karua @ Mahesh has been granted bail by the Court vide order dated .15.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44671 of 2024, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.05.2025. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, as per statements of two eye witnesses recorded during investigation Karua @ Mahesh and other co-accused made assault upon the deceased and from the post mortem report, it reflects, he sustained as many as eight injuries but he could not dispute, as per eye witnesses, at the time of incident accused persons were under intoxication and both the eye witnesses did not attribute any weapon to the accused including applicant. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.05.2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but informant of the case is not an eye witness and it reflects, on the basis of suspicion he lodged FIR of the present case. Further, however, from the statements of the two eye witnesses Smt. Geeta and Akash @ Teetu it reflects, Karua @ Mahesh and co-accused Ram Prakash assaulted the deceased but from their statements it reflects, all the three were under intoxication. Further, both the witnesses did not attribute any specific role to anyone and they also did not state what weapon was used by the applicant and another accused and considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that from the statements of eye witnesses it reflect, Karua @ Mahesh and co-accused Ram Prakash made assault through kick and fist, cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further, however, deceased sustained as many as eight injuries but he died due to Coma as a result of head injury and there is no evidence that applicant caused head injury. Further, applicant is in jail since 25.05.2025. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Bhura Alias Durgesh, 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 :- 11.8.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad