HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26296 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the first informant, Shri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Brijbhan, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 3(5), 352, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station- Jakhura, District - Lalitpur. 3. There is allegation in the First Information Report that on 19.04.2025 at about 05:30pm, son and father of the informant were coming home on a motorcycle and when they reached at village Nauharkhurd, the accused-applicant along with other named persons came there and due to previous enmity started hurling abuses and when opposed, the applicant and one Ramraja assaulted the father (deceased) of the informant with axe due to which the deceased sustained injury and died subsequently. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijit Saxena Brijbhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) case crime number and is languishing in jail since 23.04.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged incident and in the FIR, two persons including the applicant have been assigned the role of assault with axe, but as per the post-mortem report, only one injury being one incised would of size 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm has been sustained by the deceased. He further submits that the police after taking the accused-applicant and co-accused in custody, has shown false and planted recovery of two axes (which were without blood stain) on the pointing out of the accused-applicant and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It has been argued that the informant Sher Singh is not an eye-witness inasmuch as he was not present there at the time and place of the occurrence. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of alleged narration of his son Ajit. It is further argued that the post-mortem of the deceased discloses a single incised wound measuring 5.5cm x 1.5 cm located on the left parietal-frontal region approx 3cm above the left eyebrow. The FIR alleges brutal attack by the applicant and co-accused wieling axes. There are no multiple injuries, no bruises or signs of struggle anywhere on the body of the deceased. The internal findings state multiple comminuted fracture in the skull cerebral hemorrhage and 40ml of clotted and free blood, but no trauma to any other part of the body. The cause of death reported is shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem head injury caused by a sharp object. The said injury can be caused by a sudden fall onto a hard surface like a stone calvert especially considering the terrain described in the site plan and the age and fragile built of the deceased (72 years old). The motorcycle rider Ajit did not sustain any injuries which is improbable in a genuine two person axe attack. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the eye witness (son of the informant) in his statement has BAIL No. 26296 of 2025 2 specifically assigned the role of assault to the applicant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the post-mortem report of the deceased in particular the nature of the injuries recorded therein, opinion of the doctor that the injuries have been caused by sharp object, the common intention of the applicant armed with an axe to cause the injuries, the Court does not find merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the injuries recorded in the post-mortem could be caused by hard and blunt object, such as, a culvert. The Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. August 28, 2025 Anjali BAIL No. 26296 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad