I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter referred to as deceased) have murdered by applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014.  The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the alleged incident, while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 9 Kilometers and the informant was having motorcycle. That according to the first information report the informant was present everywhere i.e. from Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was picked and he was also called his cousin brothers namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three are followed the deceased till incident place but not raised alarm at any point in any manner. That as a matter of record, the first information report was not lodged after two hours of the alleged incident, it has been lodged after much delay of the alleged incident, which is itself clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the death of deceased persons was given at police station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M.	 and on 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and on the inquest report no case number is mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that it had been registered under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to the information of the death of deceased persons. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. That it is admitted case of the prosecution that neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged eye witnesses) have received any type of injury in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates doubt on the presence of complainant and his cousins at the place of alleged incident. That the post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not corroborate the prosecution case as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees three injuries have been reported and in the post mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two injuries have been reported, while as per prosecution all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased persons and further no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of deceased persons reveals that deceased persons died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of the those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye witness of the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution story in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That neither the applicant has motive nor any motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the role of the causing injury by danda has been assigned to the applicant and the false recovery of danda has been also shown on his pointing out, while the reality is that nothing has been recovered by the pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery of the danda is false & fabricated and planted on, which is itself evident from this very fact that the alleged recovery has been shown from an open place, which is easy approach of every person and further there is no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That after perusal of the post mortem report, it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries on any deceased persons. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and no source of light has been disclosed. That earlier the first information report was registered only against 9 persons but later on, during the course of investigation, two persons have also been made accused in the present case. That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons were hardened criminal and they have been murdered due to their criminal activities and later on, after having the knowledge of the death of the his brothers, the informant managed lodging a false first information report against applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of death of his brothers. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant filed certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because free copy of the bail rejection order is being never received. The bail application moved before the court below along with five persons and same is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter referred to as deceased) have murdered by applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014.  The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the alleged incident, while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 9 Kilometers and the informant was having motorcycle. That according to the first information report the informant was present everywhere i.e. from Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was picked and he was also called his cousin brothers namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three are followed the deceased till incident place but not raised alarm at any point in any manner. That as a matter of record, the first information report was not lodged after two hours of the alleged incident, it has been lodged after much delay of the alleged incident, which is itself clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the death of deceased persons was given at police station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M.	 and on 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and on the inquest report no case number is mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that it had been registered under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to the information of the death of deceased persons. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. That it is admitted case of the prosecution that neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged eye witnesses) have received any type of injury in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates doubt on the presence of complainant and his cousins at the place of alleged incident. That the post mortem reports of the deceased persons do not corroborate the prosecution case as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees three injuries have been reported and in the post mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two injuries have been reported, while as per prosecution all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased persons and further no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of deceased persons reveals that deceased persons died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of the those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye witness of the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution story in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That neither the applicant has motive nor any motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the role of the causing injury by gahdala has been assigned to the applicant and the false recovery of gahdala has been also shown on his pointing out, while the reality is that nothing has been recovered by the pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery of the gahdala is false & fabricated and before the alleged incident i.e. 06.01.2014 and planted on, which is itself evident from this very fact that the alleged recovery has been shown from an open place, which is easy approach of every person and further there is no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That after perusal of the post mortem report, it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries on any deceased persons. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and no source of light has been disclosed. That earlier the first information report was registered only against 9 persons but later on, during the course of investigation, two persons have also been made accused in the present case. That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons were hardened criminal and they have been murdered due to their criminal activities and later on, after having the knowledge of the death of the his brothers, the informant managed lodging a false first information report against applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of death of his brothers. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant filed certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because free copy of the bail rejection order is being never received. The bail application moved before the court below along with five persons and same is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Narendra Bahadur Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Anand Bahadur Singh resident of Sarai Khande, Dughvan, Sarai Khande Mu, District - Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 08.05.2023 at 06.45 hours by Dilip Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector, Police Station – Kheron, District - Raebareli resident of Village – Ajgara Raniganj, Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Section 307 of IPC at Police Station – Kheeron District – Raebareli regarding incident dated 16.08.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 10.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 08.05.2023 by the informant alleged therein that on 06.05.2023, when he was patrolling he received information around 09.00 PM that in a Tilakuttasav, an unknown person fired due to which Raju Mishra was shot in the stomach and injured brought to the hospital. That the first information lodged by the informant is delayed about 2 days without giving any explanation of the delay, which creates doubt about the prosecution story. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while he himself is not clear that the applicant committed the crime as alleged by him. The informant just said, in his first information report he just came to know that an unknown person fired in a function. That the injured have been brought to the District   Hospital, Raebareli, on 06.05.2023 where the injury report has been prepared by the concerned doctor. However, it has not been cleared by the doctor concerned as he stated that the injury was caused by a suspected firearm. The photo/typed copy of the injury report of the injured dated 06.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That after initial treatment of the injured, he was discharged on the very same day i.e. on 06.05.2023 and referred to the Department of Trauma, K.G.M.U, Lucknow. The photocopy of the discharge slip dated 06.05.2023 issued by the District Hospital, Raebareli is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same is depends upon the concocted story and nothing has been done by the applicant as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2023 in which the informant has given approximately the same statement as mentioned in the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That several statements of the witnesses have been recorded by the investigating officer on 08.05.2023 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they said they only heard the gunshot but they don’t know who fired. The typed copies of the statements of the witnesses of the case are being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 08.05.2023, the injured died thereafter the wife of the deceased injured moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station - Kheeron, District - Raebareli stating therein that her husband was shot on 06.05.2023 in a function and during treatment at K.G.M.U., Lucknow on 08.05.2023 at 09.00 AM and also introduced an eyewitness. The typed copy of the endorsement of the application moved by the wife of the deceased injured on 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the very same i.e. on 08.05.2023, the statements of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime, and both have named the applicant in their statement. The typed copies of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime are being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer after recording the statement of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime, altered the Section of the Case Crime from Section 307 to 304 of I.P.C. on 08.05.2023 and the investigation of the case crime is still going on. The typed copy of the endorsement of the C.D. No. 2 dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That after the death of the injured, his dead body was brought for the post-mortem prepared by the doctor concerned on 08.05.2023 in which the cause of death has been ascertained as  ‘anti mortem firearm injury’. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem dated 08.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the concerned police arrested the applicant on 10.05.2023 from his house showing his arrest far from his house for extraneous reasons and also recovered the gun used in said alleged incident. The typed copy of the arresting-cum-recovery memo dated 10.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident in any manner. That the applicant was indeed present at the function on 06.05.2023 and holding the firearm of one of his family members at that moment someone opened fire in the air, which injured a person. That the applicant had not been fired but he hold a firearm at the said function therefore after the death of the injured, his wife named the applicant along with an eyewitness. That till date the ballistic report has not been received by the concerned police to show that the applicant had fired on 06.05.2023 as alleged against him. That the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime named the applicant in their statements merely on the basis of hearsay evidence, while the applicant has no concern with the said incident. That here it is relevant to mention that the informant has well aware that the injured is under treatment but he had not tried to record any statement of the injured. That nothing has been recovered from the applicant by the concerned police in relation to the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police on 10.05.2023 merely on the basis of false, incorrect and wrong statements of the wife of the deceased injured and alleged eyewitness of the case crime without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely friend of another accused, the applicant, and other accused of the crime, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing Bail Application No. 1971 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Raebareli, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 07.06.2023 without considering the grounds in his bail application. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 10.05.2023 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 201 of 2023 under Section 304 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kheeron, District – Raebareli during the pendency of the case.


I, Mohd. Islam aged about 35 years son of Mohd. Rafi resident of Village – Lawana, Police Station - Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Band Master, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and three family members of the applicant on 31.07.2014 on 14.30 hours by the father of the deceased namely Mohd. Arman, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of wrong facts, the incident took place on 26.07.2014.  The photocopy of the first information report dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the informant stated in the first information report, the marriage of daughter of informant namely Shaziya Bano was solemnized with applicant on 23.02.2014 in group marriage in District – Pratapgarh without dowry. Just after marriage, the applicant and his family member was demanding dowry and when the demand of the applicant and his family member has not fulfilled in result of that they brutally murdered his daughter. That some spot witnesses namely Ayodhya Prasad Maurya and others given statement before the investigating officer as on 26.07.2014 near about 3.00 PM deceased quarreled with the applicant for leaving the family member of the applicant and wants to settle with the applicant in Mumbai, where the applicant residing for the livelihood of his family. Just after quarrel the deceased enter her room and locked from inside. When the deceased raised alarm for saving her life then the applicant and some other villagers tried to open the door but door was locked from inside. Thereafter the applicant enters the room from the back side of the home by using stair and opens the door from inside, where the deceased was burning and the applicant brought the deceased hospital for medication. The type copy of the statements of spot witnesses of the case is being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That after opening the door the applicant called the Ambulance by the helpline No. 108 and brings the deceased with family members to SRN Hospital, Allahabad for treatment and admitted in hospital at 07.25 PM. The photocopy of the hospital admission slip dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 27.07.2014 before the presence of ACM, Sushila at SRN Hospital, Mortuary, Allahabad and the Panchat are as under: 1. Mohd. Arman son of Mohd. Nasir resident of Pateullapur, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh, 2. Mohd. Murtaza son of Mustafa resident of Gaura, Police Station – Sorawan, District- Allahabad, 3. Mohd. Junaid son of Mohd. Arman resident of Pateullapur, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh 4. Aasheen son of Mohd. Safiq resident of Village – Lawana, Police Station - Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh 5. Mohd. Islam son of Ali Hasan resident of Varista, Police Station – Jethwara, District – Pratapgarh The type copy of the inquest report dated 27.07.2014 prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the post mortem was done on body of the deceased on 27.07.2014 in MLN, Hospital, Allahabad at 4.00 PM. The photocopy of the post mortem report dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer on 31.07.2014 wherein the informant repeated the version of his first information report. The type copy of the statement of informant dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That the applicant belongs to very poor family and has bearing Antyoday Ration Card but the informant alleged the applicant and his family demanded one Motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- same is unbelievable. The photocopy of the Antyoday Ration Card is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That charge sheet filed by the investigation officer on 06.11.2014 against only applicant including under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act. That the applicant has been arrested by the police on 20.08.2014 and moved the bail application before the court concerned and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 31.01.2015. The copy of the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 20.08.2014 and has no criminal history. That investigating officer has not found any evidence against the other accused on the basis of statements of the spot witnesses. That the applicant was living in Mumbai for the survival/livelihood of his family members but the deceased always pressurized him to bring her to Mumbai and the deceased was always quarreled for this issue with the applicant but the economic status of the applicant has not allowed bringing the deceased to Mumbai. That on date of incident i.e. 26.07.2014, the deceased was start quarreling with applicant near about 01.00 PM and suddenly about 03.00 PM she run away in room and locked from inside and committed suicide. That on basis of said issue the deceased committed suicide and nothing was done by the applicant as alleged by the informant and proved the concerned police. That the applicant has no issue with the deceased in his life and both are very happy except above mentioned but the informant has lodged first information report on the wrong facts. That there is no any evidence found by the investigating officer in regard of demand of the dowry. After suicide of the deceased the informant cooked this story overnight. That the applicant is innocent and due to take revenge with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime and the only evidence against the applicant in regard of alleged offence is only false story and baseless ground, which was by the informant and the police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and informant as the applicant committing the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive, for the money, has been fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Suraj Kumar Singh aged about 18 years son of Hemant Singh resident of Dahilamau, Police Station – Kotawali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Perusing B.Sc. II year , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the real brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant for doing pairvi of the case/ application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and one another & two unmanned persons on 31.07.2014 at 17.30 hours by the informant Ghanshyam Rawat under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the first information report dated 31.07.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged incident took place on 31.07.2014 at 01.00 P.M. as the applicant with other accused on 31.07.2014, when the daughter of the informant namely Ku. Rajni came back from her school, the accused persons beaten the daughter of the informant and also abusing to her. That the real incident is that, being resident of same locality of the accused and the informant, the daughter of the informant and accused/ applicant quarreled for passing the cycle on the road, when the victim returning home from her school. That thereafter informant become annoyed and decided to punished the accused person and for that purpose the informant putting the gravity of the case lodged the said first information report on the false ground and reason. That from perusal of the first information report, it is clear that the Section 7/8 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not made against the applicant as the nothing was alleged and mentioned in first information report and as well as statement of the victim, which is essential element of the Section 7 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. The type of the statement of the victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the medical of the victim done at District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.07.2014 and as per medical report the one injury shown which is simple in nature. The photo/ type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2014 and also alleged eyewitnesses therein all repeat the first information report, nothing has been changed in their statements. The type copies of the informant and alleged eyewitness are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That alleged eyewitness produced by the informant are not really eyewitnesses as the said incident not took place, they are well managed produced by the informant. That a minor quarreled between the victim and accused but due to ego of the informant, he cooked false incident and implicate the applicant. That the alleged incident is said to have been taken place in broad day and it is also impossible to the applicant to tried as alleged by the informant. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is student and belongs to respected family of the society also and due to ego of the informant he falsely implicated in the said case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1528 of 2015 before Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 18.09.2015. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 14.09.2015. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Ikrar Ahmad aged about 41 years son of Tajmmul Khan resident of Behsa, P/O 32 Bataliyan, Behsa, District – Lucknow, Religion – Muslim, Occupation – Private Job, Education – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is Mama of the applicant and doing pairvi of Applicant in the above-noted case and duly authorized by him for filing the instant application before the Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photo of the deponent is pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is annexed with this affidavit. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 27.09.2018 at about 21.29 Hours, the informant Shri Ravindra Srivastava, Station House Officer, Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 3 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 380 of 2020 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 27.09.2018 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is the gang leader of a gang, who is committing the offences in an organized manner regularly as they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 17.09.2018. The photocopy of the gang chart approved by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him, and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 27.09.2018 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, The two cases mentioned in the gang chart are as below:- Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 under Sections 379, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 218 of 2019 under Sections 394, 307, 302, 120B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 63 of 2018 under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 64 of 2018 under Sections 307, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 68 of 2018 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 380 of 2018 under Sections 2/3 of Gangster Act registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, which is the present case, in which the bail application is moved. Case Crime No. 439 of 2017 under Sections 302, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 467 of 2017 under Sections 323, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. Case Crime No. 267 of 2007 under Sections 323, 392 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, so far relates this case, this case is intentionally mentioned in the gang charge as the application was just about 7 years old, which the said case lodged. The photocopies of Bail orders passed by the court concerned are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved in any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. The police for showing their good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has a good reputation. That the applicant is in jail since ____________ without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Raniganj, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 2164 of 2019  before the Additional Session judge/Special Judge (Gangster), Room No. 5, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 17.01.2020. The free copy of the order dated 17.01.2020 misplaced by the deponent hence the certified copy of the order is annexed. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is not committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial.


I, Rajeev Kumar Singh aged about 50 years son of Shri Jagdeesh Singh resident of Village – Dalpatpur, Post – Dalpatpur Uparhar, District - Ayodhya, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the maternal uncle (Mama)/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The photo affidavit slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail of the applicant filed before this Hon’ble Court and no other bail application on same cause of action is filed or pending in any court of law. That on 18.05.2024 at about 21.11 Hours, the informant Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma, Station House Officer, Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya lodged a first information report against 6 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 163 of 2024 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya. The certified and typed copy of the first information report dated 18.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant is a member of a gang, whose leader is Abhishek Singh alias Sarvan Singh, who is committing the offences in an organized manner regularly along with others gang member including its leader and they are habitual, for their economic benefit and due to their terror no one can dare to speak against them. That prior to lodging the aforesaid case crime against the applicant, the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 18.05.2024. The photocopy of the gang chart approved by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya on 18.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That during the preparation of the gang chart by the authority concerned and approval of the same, no one followed the Standard Operating Procedure and Rules, 2021 for preparation and approval of the gang chart. That the gang chart dated 18.05.2024 was not prepared and proposed by initially by the Station House Officer, Police Station - Purakalandar, District - Ayodhya and forwarded to the first approving authority i.e. Circle Officer. That as per Rules, 2011 the Circle Officer forwarded the proposed gang chart to the Additional Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police along with relevant papers but on bare perusal of the gang chart, it was not prepared and proposed by the Station House Officer, Police Station - Purakalandar, District - Ayodhya and same has been prepared and proposed by the Circle Officer himself. That at the time of approval of the gang chart against the applicant, the authorities violated the guidelines/ law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Hon'ble High Court as well as Rules, 2021, by which the gang chart forwarding officer, at time of approval of the gang chart, written his comments by his own handwriting but here in this case, the forwarding officer comments were already printed on the gang chart and only initial has been put on the gang chart by the authority concerned. That here it is also relevant to mention that the entire gang chart, along with comments of the C.O., Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, and District Magistrate, Ayodhya has been typed prior to approval of the same, which shows that the authorities have prejudice against the applicant. That no any approving authority applied its mind or gone through the papers prior to approving the gang chart hence the gang chart dated 18.05.2024 is null and void ab-initio. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is totally innocent and does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report by the informant. That the informant in order to show his good and hard work, falsely implicated the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, Only one case is mentioned in the gang chart, which is as below:- Case Crime No. 522 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 308, 506, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya, in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.09.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is neither member of the alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved in any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2023 in connection with another case mentioned hereinabove and the concerned police taken remand in the present case crime on 19.05.2024, since then he is jail in present case. That the real fact is that the applicant is innocent and belongs to a respected family and has a good reputation. That the concerned police for showing their good work falsely implicated the applicant in the said case crime. That the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2023 without committing any offence as alleged against him. That the applicant does not commit any offence for his economical and physical benefit. The applicant is not convicted previously in any case crime. The allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 relating to Police Station – Purakalandar, District – Ayodhya, is made against him. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1967 of 2024  before the Special Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional Session Judge, Fifth, Ayodhya and same has been rejected on 25.09.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. That the applicant is previously not convicted by any court of law. Apart from abovementioned there is no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant further declares in compliance of the Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that the applicant is not committed any offense as alleged in the first information report and also he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail, if so granted by this Hon'ble High Court. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish personal bond and sureties to the entire satisfaction before the court, if the bail is granted to him. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial.


I, Shiv Pujan aged about 57 years son of Late Dubari Prasad resident of 542, Devkali Karanpur, Post – Pure Narshing Bhan, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Government Servant, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court.    No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the four unknown person on 26.09.2023 at 22.16 hours by Rajendra Kumar Tiwari son of Shri Shambhu Nath Tiwari resident of Meera Bhawan, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 323, 394 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 26.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 26.09.2023 by the informant alleged that on 26.09.2023 at about 01.30 A.M. four persons came in a car without number plate and started beating him. The informant further stated that the police persons (Chetah Mobile Police) were present and record the incident and after his initial treatment then he found the 4-5 thousand has been looted. That on perusal of the first information report, it was very strange that the police personnel (Chetah Mobile Police) were there but they have not tried to stop the incident and just watched the entire alleged incident. That the informant was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh for treatment on 26.09.2023, where he was medically examined and the injury of the informant was found simple in nature. The photo/typed copy of the injury report dated 26.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report he was brought to the hospital by the police personnel just after alleged incident while his medical was prepared on 26.09.2023 at 04.00 P.M. and first information report lodged at 10.16 P.M.. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while the applicant has no concern with the said alleged incident. That on 27.09.2023, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is contrary to the first information report lodged by him. The informant stated that he has moved application for lodging first information report on next day of alleged incident while the informant moved application on very same of the alleged incident i.e. 26.09.2023. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 27.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the informant further stated in his statement that when the Chetah Mobile Police came at spot then the accused persons runaway from the place of occurance. That on 28.09.2023, a forged, false and fabricated recovery cum arresting memo has been prepared by the concerned police in which shown recovery of Rs. 1000.00 from the applicant and also recorded the confession of the applicant under the life threat, given by the concerned police, when he was arrested. The photo/typed copy of the recovery cum arresting memo dated 28.09.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the applicant was arrested from his house by the concerned police on 28.09.2023 around 08.00 A.M. and later on his fake and fabricated arresting memo has been prepared by them. That after the arrest of the applicant, on 02.10.2023 the further statement of the informant has been recorded by the concerned police in which he named the applicant and other accused.  The typed copy of the further statement of the informant dated 02.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the informant in his further statement stated that as “vkW[k esa pksV yxus ds dkj.k mu O;fDr;ksa ds ckjs esa tku ugha ik;k Fkk” but later on, strangly he identify the applicant and others with their name and addresses. That the Investigating Officer, without proper investigation of the case crime, ignoring the truth of the case, a charge sheet  No. 586 of 2023 has been filed by the concerned police against the applicant and 2 others on 29.10.2023 under Sections, 394, 412 of I.P.C.. That the real fact of the case crime is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as stated by the informant of the case crime. That on 26.09.2023, the applicant was returning from a function with his friends and stopped the shop of the informant for a tea break. That when the applicant and other were present at that place, which is nearby the Bus Stand, there was crowd and some dispute was arisen between the informant and some unknow person and after few minutes, they started beaten the informant. That later on, the applicant was arrested from his house by the concerned police and named in the connection to the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant is in jail 28.09.2023 without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 394, 412 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2912 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 08.11.2023. Free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 28.09.2023 without the commission of any offense  & no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 644 of 2023 under Sections 363,  342 of IPC registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


I, Samim aged about 58 years son of Jamilakhan, 143, Bhonka, District - Gonda, District - Gonda, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self-employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 19.03.2020 at 13.10 hours by Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Shri Devi Prasad Singh resident of Village – Lauhangpur Deeha, Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 363 of IPC at Police Station – Paraspur District – Gonda regarding incident dated 18.03.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 19.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 19.03.2020 by the informant alleged that on 18.03.2020 at about 12.00 P.M. her daughter/victim aged about 14 years old, went outside of her house but late evening when she did not return to her house, then the informant searched her neighborhood and relatives and when no information was gathered about victim then she lodged the first information report. That the first information lodged by the informant was delayed about 25 hours without giving any explanation of the delay, which created doubt about the prosecution story. That the informant has lodged the first information report only on a presumption basis, while the applicant has no concern with the said alleged incident. That on 21.03.2020, the victim returned to her home thereafter, the informant informed the concerned Police Station regarding the arrival of the victim on 23.03.2020. On said date, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she repeated her version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 23.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the concerned police recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 31.0 in which she stated that when she went to the mustered field, an unknown person tried to catch him then she ran away to the canal, where a person was present and she asked him to help her and drop her to her house then the said person brought her to his house, where she stayed for 4 days. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 31.03.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical of the victim was conducted on 26.05.2020 at District Women Hospital, Gonda, and the age of the victim was ascertained as 18 to 19 years by the doctor. The photo/typed copy of the medical dated 26.05.2020 and age determination certificate dated 28.05.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the endorsement of the age determination of the victim has been endorsed in the CD-6 dated 29.03.2020 and the statement of the doctor concerned has been recorded on 24.06.2020, in which she stated that the rape has not been committed with the victim. The typed copy of CD-6 dated 29.03.2020 and the statement of the doctor dated 24.06.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That on 02.06.2020, the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned court, in which she changed her earlier statement and built a new story, to falsely implicate the applicant under the influence of her mother and some other persons. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the name of accused Daddan, the applicant, Harinath Dubey and Nageshwar have come to light, and as the victim stated that Daddan and the applicant committed rape with her, therefore, Sections 376, 342, 120-B of IPC and Section 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 added in said case crime. The investigating officer also opined that the incident is doubtful. The typed copy of the findings of the Investigating Officer dated 02.06.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer had received several affidavits given by Surya Prakash, Chunnilal, Saraswati, Daya Shankar, Sanwal Prasad, Sunil Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Shobha, and Babloo addressing the Superintendent of Police, Gonda for proper investigation of the case crime and getting the CDR of accused Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey. The typed copy of the CD-19 dated 30.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That the supplementary medical report dated 09.06.2020 was received by the Investigation Officer in which mentioned that ‘No sperm seen in the smear exeed” and also there was no opinion was given regarding the rape of the victim. The typed copy of the CD-20 dated 31.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the further statement of the victim was been recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31.08.2020, in which several specific questions were asked of her. The typed copy of the further statement of the victim dated 31.08.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded statements of all persons, who have given their affidavit in support of accused Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey, in which they stated that due to animosity, the rivals of Daddan and Shiv Pujan Dubey have falsely implicated them with the help of informant and victim. The photocopy of the statements of the deponents of the affidavits are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That on 09.09.2020, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the wife of the applicant in which she stated the truth of the entire conspiracy and denied all allegations made against the applicant. Two other witnesses have also stated that the applicant has not committed the offense as alleged against him. The typed copy of the statement of the wife of the applicant and two other witnesses dated 09.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer, later on, dropped the name of the accused Daddan alias Raj Narayan and Shiv Pujan Dubey on the basis of the CDR of both accused. The typed copy of the endorsement of CD-22 dated 09.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 13 to this affidavit. That the statement of the applicant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 12.09.2020, in which he gave all details of the incident, which happened on 18.03.2020, and denied the commission of offense as alleged against him by the victim. The typed copy of the statement of the applicant dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 14 to this affidavit. That the statements of some persons namely Yakoob, Rahmuddin, Nizamuddin, Rajesh Kumar, Ajay Singh, Chandra Bhan Singh, and Tej Babadur Singh were recorded Investigating Officer on 12.09.2020, in which they supported the story of the applicant. The typed copies of the statements of the witnesses dated 12.09.2020 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 15 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime, on 12.09.2020 after concluding the investigation of the case crime gave a summary of the case and deleted Section 376, 120-B of IPC and 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also dropped the name of the Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey and Nageshwar Mishra from the case crime. The typed copy of the endorsement of the Investigating Officer dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 16 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer, without proper investigation of the case crime, ignoring the truth of the case, a charge sheet has been filed by the concerned police against the applicant on 12.09.2020 under Sections, 363, 342 of IPC. The typed copy of the endorsement of the Investigating Officer in CD-23 dated 12.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 17 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case crime is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as stated by the victim of the case crime. That on 18.03.2020, the victim met with the applicant and asked for lift. When the victim did not tell her destination, then the applicant asked where she wanted to go. The victim requested to bring her to his house. That the victim further stated that her mother had beaten her and thrown her from her house and she had been hungry for the last two days, If he would not help her then she commit suicide. That the applicant had no option then decided to help her and bring her to his home and thereafter went to in marriage function on 18.03.2020. When he returned on 19.03.2020 and asked for the details from the victim about her family members. That the applicant after several efforts, found out the family members of the victim and he handed over the victim to her mother on 21.03.2020 in the presence of some respectable persons in the area. That later on, the applicant came to know that the victim has alleged that the applicant has committed rape on her while the applicant in a bonafide manner help her. That the victim named the applicant in the said first information report merely to ruin the name & fame of Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey, while the applicant has no concern with the said incident. That the applicant is in jail 21.08.2023 without rhyme and reason, while the applicant was not involved in the commission of the crime as alleged against him. That neither the applicant has any motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. Merely ruining the name and fame of Daddan alias Raj Narayan, Shiv Pujan Dubey, the applicant has been framed in the said case crime. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 363, 342 of IPC at Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 03.08.2023 and moved bail application bearing No. 2101 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Gonda and vide order dated 03.08.2023, the applicant was granted interim bail till 21.08.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned court below on 03.08.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 18 to this affidavit. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 2101 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Gonda and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 21.08.2023. Free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 19 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 21.08.2023 without the commission of any offense  & no any previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 under Sections 363, 342 of IPC registered at Police Station – Paraspur, District – Gonda during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


I, Dinesh Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Late Vijay Pal Singh resident of 715/605, Sabji Mandi, Karnalganj, District - Allahabad,  Religion – Hindu, Education – LL.B., Occupation – Advocacy and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this  and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the second bail application, first bail application No. 6827 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi “J” on 04.04.2014. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to  where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 p.m. and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40p.m.. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 p.m.. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 p.m. at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar,  in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013at 3.30 p.m.. The death is ude to come as relult of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injrry istated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, gourth injuries is right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at  after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating offerthe statement in Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Photo and copy of the witnesses are being herewith collectively as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in  , Gomti Nagar,  and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neuro Surgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Penumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheostomised by anti surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witness by his brother-in-law and mother in side the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 a.m. examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and conducted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of doctor Uday Pratap Singh is being herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces brick and one peace danda of wood, blood stain on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the informant is not eye witness. Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration dadasa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadasa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be opened by katta while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. That the dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was accused along with other and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was re-known advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That what absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not used lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That after 2008 no any criminal case is registered against the applicant. Case crime No. 107 of 1997 under Section 374 I.P.C. and bonded Labour Act, the applicant is on bail case is pending. Case crime No. 122 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 3223, 504,506 I.P.C., the applicant on bail, case is pending. Case is crime No. 143 of 2008 under Section 3 (1) Gunda Act withdraw of the notice by the then District Magitrate. Case crime No. 148 of 2008 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., the proceeding is dropped. The applicant is on bail and the same is pending. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after loosing the case in the . He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the father of the applicant and was on bail by the , this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and as such the applicant does not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since         . That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Rana Pratap Singh aged about 23 years son of Shamsher Singh resident of House No. 140, Peethapur, Tashil – Lalganj Ajhara, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Pursuing Graduation, Occupation – Studying and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the third bail application, first bail application No. 6827 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi “J” on 04.04.2014 and the second bail application No. 8546 of 2014 has been dismissed as not press on 28.05.2015 by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena “J”. The photocopy of the Hon'ble Court order dated 04.04.2014 passed in first bail application and order dated 28.05.2015 passed in second bail application are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this affidavit. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to Lucknow where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 p.m. and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40p.m.. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 p.m.. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 p.m. at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013at 3.30 p.m. The death is due to coma as result of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injury is stated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, fourth injury is on right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at Delhi after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased who stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron rod and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold of the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Type copies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in Mayo Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neurosurgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post-operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Pneumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheotomised by anti-surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That according to the report given by the doctor Tarun Pandey (M.S., M.C.H., Neurosurgeon) deceased was referred to him but no evidence of head injury was found in the C.T. Scan report. That this fact has deliberately been concealed by the investigating officer of this case with some oblique motive and for this reason he has not taken the C.T. Scan plates on the record of the investigation of the case. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witnesed by his brother-in-law and mother inside the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 a.m. examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and concocted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of Doctor Uday Pratap Singh is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces of brick and one piece of blood stained wooden danda, on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the informant is not an eyewitness Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant is highly unreliable and a chance witness. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration gadansa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadansa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be used was katta, while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. Type copy of dying declaration being herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi when the deceased was not in the position to give any statement. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as in the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was an accused along with others and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was renowned advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That an absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not use lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. The statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That following cases are registered against the applicant:- Case crime No. 107 of 1997 under Section 374 I.P.C. and bonded Labour Act, the applicant is on bail case is pending. Case crime No. 122 of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 3223, 504,506 I.P.C., the applicant on bail, case is pending. Case is crime No. 143 of 2008 under Section 3 (1) Gunda Act withdraw of the notice by the then District Magistrate. Case crime No. 148 of 2008 under Section 110 Cr.P.C., the proceeding is dropped. The applicant is on bail and the same is pending. That after 2008 no criminal case is registered against the applicant. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after losing the case in the Hon'ble Court. He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the father of the applicant and was on bail by the Hon'ble Court, this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and the applicant has not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since 25/05/2013. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.