Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142823 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2290 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagvalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Deepak @ Chhotu, seeking enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2024, Case Crime No. 410 of 2023, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Wave City, District Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 7.11.2023. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The source of getting information has not been disclosed by the first informant in the FIR. Learned Senior Counsel submits that prior to lodging of FIR, the inquest memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer and witnesses of inquest have appended their signatures thereon. As per prosecution version, on the day of Karwachauth, the deceased and applicant were drinking alcohol and in the meantime, deceased made a sarcastic remarks regarding the wife of the applicant. When the applicant tried to stop him not to comment any vulgar remarks upon his wife, the deceased did not mend his way. Being annoyed from the act of deceased, the applicant caused injuries upon him with Balkati (weapon), resulting in death of deceased. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is a case of sudden and grave provocation, thus the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the burden to prove his innocence is upon the applicant and the same can be adduced after closure of evidence of prosecution before the Trial Court under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Muthu versus State reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- "5. We are of the opinion that the case comes under Exception I to Section 300 IPC which states as under: "Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 6. We are satisfied that the accused was deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence. If rubbish is thrown into one's house or shop one would naturally get very upset. It is evident that the accused had no motive or intention to cause the death of the deceased since the accused was not carrying the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffle with the deceased." Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per prosecution case, the weapon of offence i.e. Balkati was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, but PW-1 Pratap Singh, who is first informant of the case, during his cross examination before the Trial Court has said that Balkati and one Daranti was lying near the dead body, which belie the prosecution story. Further, PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that some villager had informed him about the incident. However, he does not know about the name of the informer. PW1 further said that he did not remember whether that person had informed him after visiting his house or telephonically. Learned Senior Counsel submits that PW1 in his statement had stated that "after coming home we discussed about the incident that we had to lodge the report. Thereafter, we went to the police station to lodge the report after two hours." Learned Senior Counsel submits that 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. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Considering all above facts and circumstances, case of sudden and grave provocation, law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Muthu (supra), the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Deepak @ Chhotu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and BAIL No. 2290 of 2025 2 two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) BAIL No. 2290 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad