Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 231 (ALL)

Khushal v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2024, under Sections 109, 351(2), 131, 191(2), 190 B.N.S., Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and nine others and six-seven unknown persons and according to the FIR applicant and other accused persons made assault and due to the assault made by them number of persons sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with as many as 15 accused persons and actually it is a case in which mob made assault and applicant never participated in the incident. 5. He further submits, however, as per prosecution in the incident four persons sustained injuries and out of four persons three persons sustained injuries on their head but there is no evidence that applicant caused injury any of them. He further submits, the act done by the mob cannot be attributed to the applicant. 6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.11.2024. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was one of the person, who was part of the mob of more than 15 persons and they made assault upon the informant side and due to the assault made by them as many as four persons sustained injuries and out of four persons, three persons sustained injuries on their head but they could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant caused head injury to the injured persons and only general allegation has been leveled against all the accused. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, in the incident, as per prosecution, four persons sustained injuries and out of four persons three persons sustained injuries on their head but it is a case in which as per prosecution as many as 15 persons made assault and only general role has been assigned to all the accused including applicant and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. 10. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.11.2024. 11. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused should be deemed to be innocent and bail should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Khushal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 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.