Shani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko.

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 403/2024, under Section 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.

¶13

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 05.10.2024 the applicant's son Shani Verma had called and taken the informant's nephew from his home at about 3.00 p.m. on 05.10.2024 and all the accused persons are stated to have assaulted him outside the village causing injuries to him. When the informant came to know about the incident he reached the spot along with several other villagers, by that time, the nephew of the informant had already passed away.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that eye-witnesses Smt Jagrani Verma and Rambahadur have assigned general role to the named co-accused persons including one Dilip Tiwari, who has not been named in the F.I.R.. The co-accused Janki Devi, Shivani and Nand Lal have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The copy of the bail orders are annexed as Annexure 12 to the bail application. Another co-accused Dilip Tiwari has been granted bail by the trial court. The copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure 13 to the bail application.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that post-mortem examination report mentions two incised wounds and cause of death has been opined to the hemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injury. Both Smt Jagrani Verma and Rambahadur have levelled general allegation of assaulting the deceased to all the accused persons including the applicant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that motive assigned to the applicant in his confessional statement varies from the motive assigned by the two independent witnesses, Ram Nepal and Dharmraj Verma, which casts doubt on the prosecution

¶17

BAIL No. 7999 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

story. The alleged recovery of Axe from the applicant is false. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the case and the role of the applicant is distinct from the co-accused persons, however, he could not dispute the fact the independent witnesses/eye witnesses have assigned same role to the applicant than that of co-accused persons.

¶21

In view of the above, considering the role assigned to the applicant; bail orders of coaccused persons, general allegations made in the prosecution case against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 06.10.2024; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Shani be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶24

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶29

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶30

August 26, 2025 Arvind

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Sonam Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Matole Alias Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ankit @ Ramjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Brij Mohan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Hameed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another