Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145801 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29038 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkumar @ Choote Katheria Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Ranjit Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0057 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, brother of the informant is stated to have left the house in the night of 10/11.03.2025 at about 2 a.m. to ease himself out whereby the applicant along with his wife are stated to have sprinkled petrol over him and set him ablaze. 5. The deceased person was heard shouting that he has been set afire by the applicant and his wife, as such he was rushed to the hospital by dialing 112 and subsequently, he was referred to Saifai Hospital whereby he was being treated, as such the FIR was instituted. 6. It is also mentioned in the FIR that earlier on also, on 09.01.2025 applicant had attempted to cause the death of the deceased person and an N.C.R. No.009 of 2025 was instituted against the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 19 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. Learned counsel has further stated that the case of self- immolation has been converted to that of attempt to commit culpable homicide. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The dying declaration of the deceased person cannot be believed as it is stated in it that he was caught hold by the applicant and his wife sprinkled petrol over him and set him afire. 9. Learned counsel has next submitted that the said dying declaration is contradictory to the statement of one Shobha Ram, who has stated that after hearing shrieks of the victim/deceased person, he came out of his house and other neighbours tried to extinguish the fire and the deceased person was shouting that the applicant and his wife have set him afire. He has also stated that the deceased person had come outside his house and had poured water over him. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of one Meera Devi, wife of Ram Lakhan, who has stated that the deceased had jumped into a water hose thereby extinguished fire and was shouting that the applicant and his wife has set him ablaze, there being contradictory statements of the other witnesses, as such applicant is entitled for bail. 11. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2025. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 12. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said contradictory statements given, if any, are trivial in nature. It has also been stated that even the statements of two witnesses referred by learned counsel for the applicant, fall within the category of Section 4 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such applicant is not entitled for bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statements of two witnesses, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 14. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 15. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 16. 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 :- 23.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad