Allahabad High Court
Ram Sewak vs State Of U.P. on 1 September, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153784
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24910 of 2025
Ram Sewak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anil Kumar Bind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., J Shubham, Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J. Shubhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2025, under Sections 103, 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Amritpur, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant alongwith six other named accused persons, namely, Muneshwar Dayal, Sahablal, Salikhram, Sunil, Ramgopal and Neeraj, is stated to have hurled abuses at the brother of the informant Ramshanker on 15.01.2025 at about 7:30 p.m.
5. On being asked by the brother of the informant to refrain from doing so, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted him, whereby he rushed into his house to save his life and they followed him into the house and assaulted him with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons, thereby caused grievous injuries to him and other persons, namely, Radheyshyam, Avanesh, Manjesh and Kaushal.
6. It is particularly mentioned in the FIR that co-accused person Sahablal was carrying a Tukora (small axe) and Salikhram was carrying an axe and other persons were carrying lathi and danda. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. The injured witnesses have increased from five to six as one person Barsana has also been added to have sustained injuries in the said incident. The said fact falsifies the prosecution story.
9. There is only one deceased i.e. Ramshanker and the injuries to other persons are simple in nature and the said Ramshanker is stated to have been assaulted by Sahablal and Salikhram. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the other co-accused persons.
10. It is true that all are stated to have barged into the house, but there are several inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses.
11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
12. Much reliance has been placed on paragraph no.4.2 of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in State of M.P. vs. Raji Lal Sharma & Anr., (2022) 14 SCC 619, which is being reproduced herein as under:- "11. Even otherwise once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not."
13. Much reliance has also been placed on paragraph no.26 of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, which is being reproduced herein as under:- "26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind: 26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. 26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. 26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. 26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. 26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. 26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
14. The applicant and other co-accused persons carried common intention to commit the said offence, which is defined in Section 3(5) of B.N.S. The applicant is a flight risk as he did not surrender for more than three months and there is likelihood of him and other co-accused persons tampering with evidence, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
15. There is difference between common intention and common object. The accused persons herein are seven in number, so the Section 3(5) of B.N.S. does not apply to the instant case. The instant case is not of having committed the offence in furtherance of common intention, rather it is a case of having committed the offence in prosecution of common object.
16. ?Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the particular role of assaulting the deceased person has been assigned to co-accused persons Sahablal and Salikhram, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant- Ram Sewak involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
19. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
September 1, 2025
(Ravi Kant)
