Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 242 (ALL)

Uma Shankar Yadav v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 313 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 118(2), 324(2), 103(1), 3(5) BNS, Police Station-Bithoor, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and two others on 22.10.2024 at about 18.10 hours and according to FIR, on 22.10.2024 at about 4:00 p.m., applicant and other accused persons when started abusing then informant and his mother resisted and thereafter applicant dragged the mother of the informant and thereafter, co-accused Kripa Sankar and Daya Sankar ablazed her after pouring diesel upon her and when brother of the informant Ajay Yadav tried to save her then they also made assault upon him due to which, he sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 115(2), 352, 118(2), 324(2) BNS but after the death of the mother of the informant, case was converted under Section 103 BNS. 5. He further submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that applicant ablazed the deceased and only allegation in the FIR. against him is that he dragged the deceased. He further submitted that however, injured witness Ajay Yadav in his statement recorded during investigation did not state that applicant dragged the deceased but he made general allegation against all the accused that they ablazed the deceased. 6. He further submitted that before her death, dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded and she, however, stated that applicant and others poured some substance upon her but she did not state that they also ablazed her and, therefore, there is no cogent evidence, which can suggest that applicant ablazed the deceased. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 26.10.2024. 8. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 26.10.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the FIR and statement of the injured and even dying declaration of the deceased involvement of the applicant is quite apparent and injured Ajay categorically stated that all the three accused persons ablazed the deceased. 9. He further submitted that however, deceased in her dying declaration did not state that applicant and others ablazed her but she categorically stated that applicant and two others poured some substance upon her and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent and he did not participate in the incident and, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, his bail application should be dismissed. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, from the FIR it could not be reflected that applicant also ablazed the deceased along with other two accused persons but in the FIR it has been stated that he dragged the deceased. 12. Further, from the statement of injured Ajay recorded during investigation, it reflects that applicant and two others ablazed the deceased. 13. Further, from the dying declaration of the deceased, which has been annexed at page no. 6 of the supplementary Affidavit dated 18.01.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application, however, it reflects that deceased did not state who ablazed her but from her dying declaration, it reflects that applicant and co-accused Kripa Sankar and Daya Sankar poured some substance upon her, therefore, from the entire material available on record, it cannot be said that applicant did not participate in the alleged crime. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage. 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.