Dipak Baheliya Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28676 of 2025

Dipak Baheliya

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Fakhruzzaman, G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Case is listed peremptorily. Learned counsel for informant is not present. Earlier also on 07.04.2026 learned counsel for the informant was not present.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Samthar, District Jhansi during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 17.02.2025 at about 11.00 p.m. The uncle of the informant was taken to Emergency, Medicine Department, GRMC, Gwalior, where the attending doctor recorded alleged history of trauma due to assault by someone at the aforesaid date and time. The first information report came to be lodged on 18.02.2025 against the applicant and co-accused Lalji. As per the first information report, the applicant and co-accused Lalji are alleged to have assaulted the uncle of the informant by an iron rod. The uncle of the informant died on 22.02.2025. As per the postmortem report, the injured sustained eight injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of "death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury" . It is contended that injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were on other parts of the body, whereas injury no. 4 was a fracture of right parietal temporal bone. The said injury is the fatal injury. It is next contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place during the night hours by unknown persons as reflected from the

¶11

BAIL No. 28676 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

admission slip of the hospital. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned as the principal offender who caused injury no. 4 to the deceased. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. Further, identically placed co-accused Lalji has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24321 of 2025, Lalji v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶14

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, the injured sustained eight injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of "death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury" . Injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were on other parts of the body, whereas injury no. 4 was a fracture of right parietal temporal bone. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned as the principal offender who caused injury no. 4 to the deceased. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. Identically placed co-accused Lalji has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and one month 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 applicant, 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 applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Dipak Baheliya, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶17