IMPORTANT POINT
The court denied bail due to serious charges and supporting evidence, emphasizing that the bail stage does not involve a detailed examination of case merits.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 83 of 2024, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 29.02.2024, at about 9:00 p.m., when the informant was returning to his home alongwith Sumit, co-accused Garv abused them and started maarpeet with them. Subsequently, co-accused Garv left the place. The informant alongwith his friend Sumit was waiting for his brother Aakash to come. Meanwhile, according to the FIR, applicant alongwith co-accused arrived at the place and started maarpeet with the informant. In the meantime, the brother of the informant Aakash with his friend Ajay also arrived at the place of incident. The applicant and co-accused attacked them with the sharp edged weapon due to which Aakash and Ajay sustained serious injuries. It is the prosecution case that Aakash was brought dead and subsequently, Ajay also died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is delayed in the matter. The incident took place on 29.02.2024 at 9:00 p.m.; the FIR was lodged on 01.03.2024. He would submit that there is no explanation to the delay. It is also argued that the statements of the witnesses, including the informant were recorded much late; the informant was examined by the Investigating Officer on 02.03.2024 and one of the witnesses Sumit Kashyap was examined on 04.03.2024, though they were available for interrogation just after the incident.

5. Referring to the statements of informant and other witness Sumit Kashyap, it is argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the fact as to who arrived when, at the place of incident. It is argued that all the witnesses are interested. The CCTV footage does not establish that the applicant attacked the deceased. Alleged recovery of knife from the applicant is bad in the eyes of law.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There are CCTV footages which categorically show that it is the applicant who was holding the knife and attacked the deceased. Two persons died in the incident.

7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

8. As per the prosecution, the incident took place in the presence of the informant and other witnesses. They have stated as to how the applicant and co-accused attacked the deceased Aakash and Ajay. In fact, there is CCTV footage, which has been described by the Investigating Officer and the description has been filed by the prosecution as Annexure 12 to the counter affidavit. Much description is not expected of at this stage, but the description of the CCTV footage supports the prosecution case.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

10. The bail application is rejected.