Kamlesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24638 of 2025

Kamlesh And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 424 of 2024, under Sections 105, 352 B.N.S., Police Station Reoti, District Ballia during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicants are alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. The son of the informant succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained eight injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries. It is next contended that in the alleged incident the applicant no. 1 had also sustained injuries. The medical report of the applicant no. 1 is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Placing reliance on the statement of the eye witness namely Rani Devi, it is contended that the applicants and the deceased Baliram both were drinking alcohol and due to sudden quarrel the incident had happened. It is contended that no prior enmity exists between the parties. The applicants had neither requisite knowledge nor intent to commit the offence. The applicants are in jail since 10.10.2024 having no criminal history and if they are released on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 24638 of 2025

2

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that in the alleged incident the applicant no. 1 had also sustained injuries. As per the statement of the eye witness namely Rani Devi, the applicants and the deceased were drinking liquor. The incident occurred due to sudden quarrel without any premeditation. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicants have remained confined for more than one year and seven months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicants- Kamlesh and Shailendra, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that they:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.