Bail should not be denied for punitive purposes, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, particularly when evidence does not conclusively link the accused to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya and Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsels for the applicants, Sri S.M. Khan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.08.2024 against applicants and four others under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and according to the FIR on 15.08.2024 at about 4.00 PM in the evening husband of the informant had gone along with his younger brother on the field where applicants and four others made assault upon him and when brother-in-law of the informant came at the home to inform the other family members and after information when they arrived at spot then found that dead body of the husband of the informant was lying in the field.

5. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicants have been made accused in the present matter along with four others.

6. They further submitted that however in the FIR total six persons were named including applicants but during investigation involvement of three accused persons were found false and charge-sheet was filed only against applicants and co-accused Sajuddin and this fact clearly suggests that FIR of the present case is based on false facts.

7. They further submitted that during investigation on the application moved by the informant side investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch and from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation by the Crime Branch it reflects that only general allegations have been leveled against all the accused.

8. They further submitted that from perusal of the post mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained only two injuries and one was on his head and another was on his right forearm and from the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Crime Branch it could not be reflected that applicants were the author of head injury. They further submitted that after considering the post mortem report, the case was converted under Section 105 B.N.S.

9. They further submitted that even from the head injury it cannot be said that it was caused by the wooden stick and deceased can sustained this injury also by falling and this fact is evident from the opinion of State Medico Legal Cell, which has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

10. They further submitted, however, apart from the present case applicant no.1 is having criminal history of one another case while applicant no.2 is having criminal history of four other cases but their criminal history have been explained in the instant bail application and all the cases relate to minor offences and in the present matter they are in jail since 03.09.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, due to the assault made by the applicants and others deceased sustained head injury and died but they could not dispute the fact that during investigation case has been converted under Section 105 B.N.S. and during investigation involvement of three accused persons were found false.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation applicant and others made assault upon the deceased due to which he died but from perusal of the post mortem, it reflects, deceased died due to head injury and he sustained only one injury on his head and from the statements recorded by the Crime Branch it could not be reflected that applicants were the author of this injury.

14. Further, from the opinion of State Medico Legal C