I, Ramesh Yadav aged about 61 years son of Shri Ram Daur Yadav resident of Village - Aspur Deosara, Police Station – Aspur Deosara, District – Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – _____________, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the 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 verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the 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 he 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 application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow on 13.12.2022 at 23.50 hours against the applicant/accused and 10 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Hafijur Rahman, then Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 13.12.2022 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that one candidate for Direct Recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector, General Constable and Equivalent Examination, 2020, which was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow namely Ritesh Kumar appeared on 13.12.2022 for the verification of the documents in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. During verification, he informed the authorities that his documents had been kept by one person, who took Rs. 15 lakhs for clearing the examination, in which the applicant helped. On the basis of the statement of another person, without verifying the facts, the first information report has been lodged by the informant. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the applicant was himself, the candidate in said examination, in which he was declared unsuccessful by the Examination Board. The photocopy of the admit card of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 14.12.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 13.12.2022, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022, who just said that the applicant and another person helped him but which manner the same was not stated by him. That on pointing out another accused Ritesh Kumar, two other accused have been arrested by the concerned police, whose statements were recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022 but they have not named the applicant, while another accused said they all are working together. The typed copies of the statement of two arrested accused dated 14.12.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant except the statement of the accused Ritesh Kumar. That the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the three accused including Ritesh Kumar on 04.03.2023 and the investigation was transferred to the STF and the same is going on. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns about any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 13.12.2022. That another accused of the case crime namely Ritesh Kumar has relations with the applicant as the applicant’s uncle’s marriage was solemnized in the house of Ritesh Kumar’s family. That during the illness of Ritesh Kumar's family member, they borrowed some money from the uncle of the applicant, who gave the money to them after taking some money from the applicant’s father, who is retired from the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. That at the time of the return of money, Ritesh Kumar's family said the applicant to receive the money in his account as Ritesh Kumar sent the money through UPI mode, as a result of same, some money was received by the applicant from the accused Ritesh on various dates, which are not associated with the crime in question but the concerned police tried to connect the same with the crime in question. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because the applicant has not committed any offense. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the 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 shows that no prima-facie offence under 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the promptness of the Investigation Officer of the case crime itself shows that he was working for the informant for extraneous reasons. 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 here it is relevant to mention here that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident but the concerned police arrested the applicant and connected him with the said offense for extraneous reasons. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That Ritesh Kumar, who named the applicant along with another accused namely Brijeet alias B. K. Singh have been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 & 24.07.2023. The photocopies of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That there is no role assigned by any accused of the case crime even they have been enlarged on bail and the allegations against the applicant is similar to the other accused as such his case is fit for granting the bail on parity. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 4685 of 2024 the Special Judge, P.C. Act - V, Lucknow but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.06.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 02.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 206 of 2022 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.


I, Ramesh Yadav aged about 61 years son of Shri Ram Daur Yadav resident of Village - Aspur Deosara, Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – _____________, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the 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 verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the 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 he 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 application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow on 13.12.2022 at 23.50 hours against the applicant/accused and 10 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Hafijur Rahman, then Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 13.12.2022 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that one candidate for Direct Recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector, General Constable and Equivalent Examination, 2020, which was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow namely Ritesh Kumar appeared on 13.12.2022 for the verification of the documents in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. During verification, he informed the authorities that his documents had been kept by one person, who took Rs. 15 lakhs for clearing the examination, in which the applicant helped. On the basis of the statement of another person, without verifying the facts, the first information report has been lodged by the informant. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the applicant was himself, the candidate in said examination, in which he was declared unsuccessful by the Examination Board. The photocopy of the admit card of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 14.12.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 13.12.2022, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022, who just said that the applicant and another person helped him but which manner the same was not stated by him. The typed copy of the recovery memo dated 14.12.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That on pointing out another accused Ritesh Kumar, two other accused have been arrested by the concerned police, whose statements were recorded by the concerned police on 14.12.2022 but they have not named the applicant, while another accused said they all are working together. The typed copies of the statement of two arrested accused dated 14.12.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant except the statement of the accused Ritesh Kumar. That the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the three accused including Ritesh Kumar on 04.03.2023 and the investigation was transferred to the STF and the same is going on. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns about any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 13.12.2022. That another accused of the case crime namely Ritesh Kumar has relations with the applicant as the applicant’s uncle’s marriage was solemnized in the house of Ritesh Kumar’s family. That during the illness of Ritesh Kumar's family member, they borrowed some money from the uncle of the applicant, who gave the money to them after taking some money from the applicant’s father, who is retired from the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. That at the time of the return of money, Ritesh Kumar's family said the applicant to receive the money in his account as Ritesh Kumar sent the money through UPI mode, as a result of same, some money was received by the applicant from the accused Ritesh on various dates, which are not associated with the crime in question but the concerned police tried to connect the same with the crime in question. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because the applicant has not committed any offense. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the 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 shows that no prima-facie offence under 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out against the applicant. That the promptness of the Investigation Officer of the case crime itself shows that he was working for the informant for extraneous reasons. 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 here it is relevant to mention here that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident but the concerned police arrested the applicant and connected him with the said offense for extraneous reasons. That apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 4685 of 2024 the Special Judge, P.C. Act - V, Lucknow but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.06.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 02.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no possibility of the applicant's conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is the common man of the society. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 206 of 2022 lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., 3, 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1998 and 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.


I, Rohit Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh resident of Village - Malak, Kandharpur, Police Station - Kohndaur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the cousin brother/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the 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 verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the 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 he 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 application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 250 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 at 13.22 hours against the applicant/accused and 2 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Anil Kumar Singh son of Late Awadhesh Bahadur Singh resident of Village - Shivrajpur Dihwa, Police Station - Antu, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 21.05.2024 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that due to a land dispute, the applicant and others have beaten the brother of the informant, when the applicant and others were stopped digging a pit. The informant further alleged that the applicant and others also beat another person and abused them. That the alleged injured was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 for initial treatment. The medical report is collobrated with the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 21.05.2024 of the injured is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.05.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 21.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this Affidavit. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime recorded some statements of the eyewitnesses, all of whom were the family members of the informant, who had given false statements to send the applicant behind bars. That one accused of the case crime was arrested by the concerned police on 22.05.2024, whose statement was recorded by the concerned police on 22.05.2024 and Gahdala recovered on pointing of him. That the applicant was arrested on 28.06.2024 by the concerned police. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the doctor on 21.07.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the injured sustained serious injuries on 1. Head, 2. Face, 3. Upside of the Knee and 4. Left thigh while as per injury report, the injured sustained only three injuries. The typed copy of the statement of the doctor dated 21.07.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this Affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the doctor, the Investigating Officer added Section 325 of I.P.C. in said case crime on 21.07.2024. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet No. 406 of 2024 on 26.07.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506, 325 of I.P.C.. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that there are land disputes between the applicant’s family and the informant’s bhabhi (sister-in-law) namely Smt. Asha Singh. That the civil suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.), Room No. 15, Pratapgarh bearing Original Suit No. 1600576 of 2008 (Rajesh Singh Vs Smt. Asha Singh and others, which was to be decided on the basis of the mutual agreement of both parties. That but prior to the final decision of the suit, the informant lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for building pressure to change the terms of the compromise. However, the suit was finally decided on 23.05.2024 on the basis of the compromise. The photocopy of the order dated 23.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this Affidavit. That after compromise one family member namely Rajesh Singh was digging pits to plant the trees at that time the injured i.e. Arvind Kumar Singh started abusing Rajesh Singh and started manhandling, meantime he was slipped into the pit, where and sustained injuries from the iron rod. That thereafter, the informant in a well-planned manner lodged a first informant report on the basis of the wrong and incorrect facts. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the 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 shows that no prima-facie offence under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka and others (2022) 14 SCC 572, held that “Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety”. That in another case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the prosecution is malafide, untenable and solely intended to harass the accused, hence the case of the petitioners is fit for quashing the first information report lodged against them. That on 18.04.2024, this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5948 of 2024 (Sone Lal and 5 others Vs State of U.P. and 3 others), passed a detailed order, in which framed certain guidelines for lodging the First Information Report, in which the civil dispute or dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deed etc. That Para No. 15 (i) of the said order, is relevant by which this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad directed as under: “Where an F.I.R. is sought to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 420 / 467, 471 I.P.C. etc., wherein, on the face of it, it appears that there is a commercial dispute or a civil dispute or a dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deeds, etc. before registration of the F.I.R., an opinion will be taken in all such cases from the concerned District Government Counsel / Deputy District Government Counsel in their respective Districts and only after obtaining a report, the F.I.R. will be registered. Such opinion will be reproduced in concluding part of F.I.R.”. The said list is not exhaustive but several other cases that directly come under a civil nature are also barred from being given criminal color and lodging of a first information report. That this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad also stated in Para No. 15(iv) that “It is made clear that in all cases where first information reports, which are to be registered after 01.05.2024, if no such legal opinion is taken by the concerned police official before registration of the F.I.R., as per (i) and (ii) above they may be liable to contempt proceedings.” That here in the present case, the case is purely civil in nature and related to the land dispute, despite that the first information report has been lodged against the applicant in contravention to the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, as such the concerned police officer is liable to be punished for the contempt proceedings for not complying the order dated 18.04.2024. 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 apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 1939 of 2024 and 2529 of 2024 before the Additional District & Session Judge, Room No. 2, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 08.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 respectively. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.08.2024 & 03.09.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 28.06.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 250 of 2024 lodged under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.


I, Rohit Singh aged about 34 years son of Shri Ran Vijay Singh resident of Village - Malak, Kandharpur, Police Station - Kohndaur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Private Job, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the nephew/pairokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the 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 verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of the 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 he 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 application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the facts giving rise to the present case are being stated in brief hereinafter. That the applicant has falsely been implicated in case crime No. 250 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 at 13.22 hours against the applicant/accused and 2 other named persons. The first information report is lodged by Anil Kumar Singh son of Late Awadhesh Bahadur Singh resident of Village - Shivrajpur Dihwa, Police Station - Antu, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 21.05.2024 lodged by the informant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report, the prosecution's story is in a nutshell, that due to a land dispute, the applicant and others have beaten the brother of the informant, when the applicant and others were stopped digging a pit. The informant further alleged that the applicant and others also beat another person and abused them. That the alleged injured was brought to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 21.05.2024 for initial treatment. The medical report is collobrated with the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 21.05.2024 of the injured is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concern with the alleged allegation without any reason and falsely implicate in said case crime. That the general allegations have been made by the informant and no any specific role assigned to the applicant. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.05.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated his version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 21.05.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this Affidavit. That on 22.05.2024, the concerned police arrested the applicant from his house and also mentioned in arresting-cum-recovery memo that the Gahdala recovered on pointing of him. That the confessional statement of the applicant was written/ prepared by the Investigating Officer on 22.05.2024 as per his wish and as narrated by the informant, by which he tried his best to collaborate with the alleged incident and statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not committed any offense. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant dated 22.05.2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated by the informant in the instant case and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statement given by the applicant. That the Investigating Officer of the case crime recorded some statements of the eyewitnesses on 27.05.204, all of whom were the family members of the informant, who had given false statements to send the applicant behind bars. The typed copies of the statements of the eyewitnesses dated 27.05.2024 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this Affidavit. That on 27.06.2024, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured Anil Kumar Singh, in which he repeated the version of the first information report in his own words. The typed copy of the statement of the injured dated 27.06.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this Affidavit. That the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the doctor on 21.07.2024 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the injured sustained serious injuries on 1. Head, 2. Face, 3. Upside of the Knee and 4. Left thigh while as per injury report, the injured sustained only three injuries. The typed copy of the statement of the doctor dated 21.07.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this Affidavit. That on the basis of the statement of the doctor, the Investigating Officer added Section 325 of I.P.C. in said case crime on 21.07.2024. That on the basis of such a story, which was narrated by the investigating officer himself, without proper investigation of the case crime, submitted the charge sheet against the applicant bearing charge sheet No. 406 of 2024 on 26.07.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506, 325 of I.P.C.. That nothing was recorded by the applicant by the concerned police at any point in time and nothing was found anything against the applicant. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has no concerns with the alleged incident as mentioned in the first information report. The informant falsely implicates the applicant in said case. That it is most relevant to mention here that there are land disputes between the applicant’s family and the informant’s bhabhi (sister-in-law) namely Smt. Asha Singh. That the civil suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.), Room No. 15, Pratapgarh bearing Original Suit No. 1600576 of 2008 (Rajesh Singh Vs Smt. Asha Singh and others, which was to be decided on the basis of the mutual agreement of both parties. That but prior to the final decision of the suit, the informant lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for building pressure to change the terms of the compromise. However, the suit was finally decided on 23.05.2024 on the basis of the compromise. The photocopy of the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this Affidavit. That after compromise one family member namely Rajesh Singh was digging pits to plant the trees at that time the injured i.e. Arvind Kumar Singh started abusing Rajesh Singh and started manhandling, meantime he was slipped into the pit, where and sustained injuries from the iron rod. That thereafter, the informant in a well-planned manner lodged a first informant report on the basis of the wrong and incorrect facts. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant in the 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 shows that no prima-facie offence under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka and others (2022) 14 SCC 572, held that “Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety”. That in another case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the prosecution is malafide, untenable and solely intended to harass the accused, hence the case of the petitioners is fit for quashing the first information report lodged against them. That on 18.04.2024, this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5948 of 2024 (Sone Lal and 5 others Vs State of U.P. and 3 others), passed a detailed order, in which framed certain guidelines for lodging the First Information Report, in which the civil dispute or dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deed etc. That Para No. 15 (i) of the said order, is relevant by which this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad directed as under: “Where an F.I.R. is sought to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 420 / 467, 471 I.P.C. etc., wherein, on the face of it, it appears that there is a commercial dispute or a civil dispute or a dispute arising out of different types of agreements or partnership deeds, etc. before registration of the F.I.R., an opinion will be taken in all such cases from the concerned District Government Counsel / Deputy District Government Counsel in their respective Districts and only after obtaining a report, the F.I.R. will be registered. Such opinion will be reproduced in concluding part of F.I.R.”. The said list is not exhaustive but several other cases that directly come under a civil nature are also barred from being given criminal color and lodging of a first information report. That this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad also stated in Para No. 15(iv) that “It is made clear that in all cases where first information reports, which are to be registered after 01.05.2024, if no such legal opinion is taken by the concerned police official before registration of the F.I.R., as per (i) and (ii) above they may be liable to contempt proceedings.” That here in the present case, the case is purely civil in nature and related to the land dispute, despite that the first information report has been lodged against the applicant in contravention to the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, as such the concerned police officer is liable to be punished for the contempt proceedings for not complying the order dated 18.04.2024. 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 apart from the above as per the best knowledge of the applicant, no other criminal history against the applicant. That the applicant had applied for bail before bearing No. 2379 of 2024 before the Additional District & Session Judge, Room No. 2, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 23.09.2024. The free copy of the bail rejection order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report by the informant and has no concern. That the applicant has been in jail since 22.05.2024 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this . That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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. 250 of 2024 lodged under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.


I, Vijay Kumar aged about 30 years, son of Shri Radheyshyam Shukla, resident of Village - Wakar Ali Ka purwa, Hamelet of Bishariya, Police Station - Hathigawan, District- Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is brother of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above noted case and also duly authorized by him. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application explained by the counsel of the applicant as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That this is third bail application of the applicant. The First bail application of the applicant bearing No. 2913 (B) of 2015 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Mahendra Dayal “J” on 23.09.2016 and Second Bail application beraing No. 10291 (B) of 2018 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 04.12.2018. That the applicant in jail on the basis of first information report lodged by Shiv Bhawan Tiwari son of Late Ram Abhilash Tiwari resident of Village – Sariyawan, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) on 31.05.2014 at 10.30 hours against the six persons including the applicant vide case crime No. 117 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station – Hathigawan, District – Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copy of the first information report dated 31.05.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention that the certified copy of the first information report dated 31.05.2014 is already on record as same has been filed with the first bail application moved by the applicant. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 31.05.2014 by the informant that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter namely Sadhna (hereinafter referred as to ‘deceased’) with the applicant with lot of dowry. But the all accused of the case crime demanded Rs. 1 Lacs and LCD TV from the daughter of the informant and for same they were tortured her. In night of the 30/31.05.2014, the accused have brutally beaten the deceased due to which has died. That as a matter of fact the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the Informant due to malafide intension of the Informant and on the ill advice of his relative. That as a matter of fact the applicant or his family had never demanded any dowry nor had tortured the deceased for the alleged demand of dowry. That the applicant never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her family members and after this unfortunate incident’s information was given to the family members of the deceased as well as Informant and his other relatives were present at the time of preparing inquest by the concerned police. The photo/ typed copy of the inquest report dated 31.05.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the post mortem was conducted on 01.06.2014 about 03.00 PM at District Hospital, Pratapgarh by the concenred docutor and as per post mortem report the casue of death is shock and come due to ante mortem injuries. The photo/ typed copy of the post mortem report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the several independent witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they stated that the deceased committed suicide at railway track. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer of the case crime, the charge sheet was filed against the accused applicant and Radhe Shyam bearing charge sheet No. 15 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 25.08.2014. The first information report was lodged against the 6 persons and only 2 persons including the applicant charge sheeted. The photo/ typed copy of the charge sheet dated 25.08.2014 filed by the concerned police is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is further relevant to mention that the concerned police prepared 2 site plans fisrt is related to house of the applicant, where the applicant his family members brought the dead body of the deceased. The photo/typed copy of the site plan - I prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the second site plan is related to railway track, where the deceased committed suicide. The investigation officer found several stones at incident place and blood stains from the incident place, which is fully supported the version of the applicant and fully against the prosecution story. The photo/typed copy of the site plan - II prepared by the investigating officer is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That on perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that the informant has named the accused persons in alleged case crime, in a very casual manner and without ascertaining the facts. That prior to the date of incident neither deceased nor informant has filed any complaint or police report was never filed either with the police or any other competent authority for any cruelty or demand of dowry, which creates doubts upon the prosecution story. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2014 without any of his fault. That no crime made out against the applicant as alleged in the impugned first information report lodged by the informant. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case. That the applicant has no criminal history at all except to this present case. That entire allegations as alleged in the first information report is false and frivolous. There was neither any demand of dowry nor the deceased was harassed in any manner. That the real fact of the case is that the deceased was suffering from several disease prior to the marriage and after marriage with the applicant, she has been provided the medical treatment by the applicant as per his financial position. The informant concealed the said fact with the applicant and his family prior to marriage. That on 11.01.2014, the deceased Sadhna Shukla has delivered one baby namely Yash Shukla but the son was also very much ill. The applicant has also provided the medical treatment to the mother and son to his label best. That the deceased requested his father i.e. the informant to help in treatment of her son but the informant denied very roudly due to which the deceased was also tensionised. That by time, the sadness of the deceased was increased day by day due illness of her son and she gone in deep depression. On mid-night of the 30/21.05.2014m when the all family members were sleeping at home and deceased leave the house and went to nearby the railway track and she hit herself with train and died due to several deadly injuries. That the informant was informed immediately after said unfortunate incident but the informant due to extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and his family members. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the family members of the applicant are common persons and hardly earn sufficient for their livelihood at this stage allegation regarding demand of one lac rupee, LCD TV are not sustained. That, the applicant has moved his bail application before Sessions Judge Pratapgarh and which has rejected on 15.09.2014  by the Session Judge, Pratapgarh. The certified copy of bail rejection order passed by the court concerned has already filed along with first bail application before this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant has filed First bail application bearing No. 2913 (B) of 2015 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Mahendra Dayal “J” on 23.09.2016 and Second Bail application beraing No. 10291 (B) of 2018 has also been rejected by Hon'ble Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh “J” on 04.12.2018. The photocopy of the order dated 23.06.2016 & 04.12.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the trial of the case has been initiated and statements and cross of the informant and other witnesses have recorded by the court concerned in which they all are stand with their statements under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C., with malafide intension to prove guilty the applicant. The photocopies of the statement and cross of the witnesses Shiv Bhavan Tiwari and Sandeep Kumar Tiwari of the trial are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, who was present at time of inquest of the deceased namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, has been exmined by the trial court, who also state the family of the deceased were also present at time of inquest. The photocopy of the statement and cross of the witness Pradeep Kumar Singh of the trial is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the informant of the case again examined by the trial court on 07.01.2019, in which he change his statement, which was given earlier before the trial court and given several contradictive statements and adduced new facts and averment, which are never came in light earlier. The photocopy of the further statement and cross of the witness Shiv Bhanvan Tiwari of the trial is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That on bare perusal of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses of the ongoing trail, there are several contradiction in the all statements, which are not collobrated with the prosecution story. That all are the interested witnesses as such merely on basis of their statements and testimony, the applicant would not be pleaded guilty. That the deceased committed suicide for her own reasons, which has been discussed hereinabove but the informant and his family members falsely implecated the applicant and his family in said case with malafide intension. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the Informant. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 04.12.2018 directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year. The certified copy of the aforesaid order has been served to the court concerned but but after more than one and half year, the trial is not conculed yet. That the applicant is suffering from the piles since long back and due to excessive bleeding from piles he was reffered fron Jail Hospital to District Hospital, Pratapgarh. The applicant is diagnosed as ‘severe anemia” and his haemoglobin is just 5.2 insted of 13-17 g/dL. And due to seriousness of the applicant’s piles, he has been referred to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj by the District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 16.07.2020. Now the applicant is under treatment at Prayagraj and his operation was scheduled but due to unavibilety of the bed his operation is postponed as the patients of Covid-19 are under treatment in S.R.N. Hospital. The photocopy of the medical reports of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That now these days due to Covid-19, the trial court is not properly working therefore there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant as directed by this Hon'ble High Court as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 noted fact, it is clear that the applicant is innocent and his is in jail since 02.06.2014 as such it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial.


I, Omanand aged about 24 years son of Shri Deshraj resident of Village – Madana Pura Bazar, Madan Uparhar, District – Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Studying, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the nephew (Bhatija) of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above-noted case and also duly authorized by the applicant for swearing this affidavit on his behalf. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application are explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2014 (Lok Nath Singh Versus State of U.P.) on 17.04.2014 before this Hon'ble High Court, which is still pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That the First bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 39623 of 2014 moved in criminal appeal has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ritu Raj Awasthi “J” and Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Jauhari “J” on 11.04.2019 and the second bail application bearing Crl. Misc. No. 67945 of 2020 of the appellant has been rejected by Hon'ble Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha “J and Mrs. Saroj Yadav “J”  vide order dated 12.04.2022. The photocopy of the order dated 11.04.2019 and 12.04.2022 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. - 1 to this affidavit. That now the third bail application is being filed by the applicant before this Hon'ble High Court on several new grounds. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the applicant in jail since 13.08.2013 prior to the passing of the order and judgment dated passed in Session Trial No. 366A of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) and Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) passed on 30.01.2014. That the present bail application is being filed in pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs The State of U.P.) on 05.10.2021, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court directed this Hon'ble High Court to consider the bail applications filed in a criminal appeal. That the first information report lodged by the Informant, Shiv Prasad Pandey on 03.07.1991 against the five persons including the applicant in connection to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 03.07.1991 that the cousin brother of the informant namely Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was going to the city at that time some known persons & one unknown person, who had country made pistol (Katta) assaulted upon him. The unknown person fired upon the deceased. At that, the police personnel came to the spot and they caught one Bhullar and unknown persons i.e. the applicant along with Katta and 3 bullets. That the appellant was initially arrested on 03.07.1991 and after about more than six months, he was released on bail. That again the appellant was sent to jail on 13.08.2013 prior to passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the learned trial court. That the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2013 to till date and also he was in jail more than 6 months prior to 13.08.2013 as such he is in jail for more than 10 years as such the appellant is entitled to release on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh Vs The State of U.P.) on 05.10.2021. That the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is fixed for the final hearing from the last several dates but the matter could not be heard due to which the appellant is unnecessarily in jail. That there is no chance of the applicant’s absconding or tempering with the Prosecution evidence as he has been convicted by the court concerned on 30.01.2014 and he is willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble court. That it is further relevant to mention that the applicant if released on bail will not misuse his liberty. The Deponent is also ready to comply with any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. That considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the Applicant may kindly be enlarge the application on Bail in relation to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda, in the interest of justice.


I, Omanand aged about 23 years son of Shri Deshraj resident of Village – Madana Pura Bazar, Madan Uparhar, District – Ayodhya, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Studying, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the nephew (Bhatija) of the applicant and doing pairvi in the above-noted case and also duly authorized by the applicant for swearing this affidavit on his behalf. The deponent further declares that the contents of this instant application are explained by the counsel of the applicant in Hindi as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the applicant has filed a Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2014 (Lok Nath Singh Versus State of U.P.) on 17.04.2014 before this Hon'ble High Court, which is still pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That the First bail application bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 39623 of 2014 moved in criminal appeal has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Ritu Raj Awasthi “J” and Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Jauhari “J” on 11.04.2019. That later on the second bail application was filed by the applicant bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 67945 of 2020 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court for consideration. Now no any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court and the present short-term bail application is the first short-term bail application of the applicant. That the applicant in jail since 30.01.2014 in furtherance of the order and judgment dated passed in Session Trial No. 366A of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) and Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1991 (State Versus Lok Nath Singh) passed on 30.01.2014. That the first information report lodged by the Informant, Shiv Prasad Pandey on 03.07.1991 against the five persons including the applicant in connection to Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda. That according to the prosecution story, it was alleged in the first information report dated 03.07.1991 that the cousin brother of the informant namely Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was going to the city at that time some known persons & one unknown person, who had country made pistol (Katta) assaulted upon him. The unknown person fired upon the deceased. At that, the police personnel came to the spot and they caught one Bhullar and unknown persons i.e. the applicant along with Katta and 3 bullets. That there is no likelihood that the regular bail application of the applicant will be decided in his favour pending in the Criminal Appeal filed by him as earlier bail applications filed by the applicant has rejected by the respective court and one is pending before this Hon'ble High Court. That meanwhile the marriage of the daughter of the applicant namely Kr. Kaya Singh is fixed for 28.05.2021 and the ritual of the marriage will be started on 27.05.2021 and be ended on 05.06.2021. The photocopy of the marriage card of the applicant’s daughter is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the applicant is the father and as per Hindu rituals/customs, several marriage rituals are not completed without the father of the bride, as such this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the application on Short Term Bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 1991, under Sections 147, 149, 149, 302 of IPC and Case Crime No. 230 of 1991 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act registered to Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Gonda, for a period of 30 days. That it is also relevant to mention there is no chance of tempering or threatening the witnesses of the case. That there is no chance of the applicant’s absconding or tempering with the Prosecution evidence as he has been convicted by the court concerned on 30.01.2014 and he is willing to furnish surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble court. That it is further relevant to mention that the applicant if released on parole/short-term bail will not misuse his liberty and would surrender himself on the expiry of the period of short-term bail/parole. The Deponent is also ready to comply with any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court. That considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the Applicant may kindly be released on parole/short-term bail for 30 days or for the term as this Hon’ble court deems fit.


I, Prmila Yadav aged about 22 years daughter of Shri Badri Prasad Yadav resident of Village – Tirchha Peeng, Kunda, Peeng, Pratapgarh, Sangramgarh, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agricultural labour, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the sister/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files 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 her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that; on 02.07.2022, Shri Ayodhya Prasad son of Late Gayadeen resident of Village Tirchha, Police Station - Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) lodged a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh against the applicant and his brothers of the applicant and two unknown persons with regard to an attempt to murder of the husband of the informant by firing upon him with regarding incident dated 25.06.2022. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 02.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That the prosecution of the informant in nutshell is that on 25.06.2022 around 07.30 hours, the applicant and his brother were in a property dispute trying to take possession of the informant’s land and protested the same, the applicant and his brothers have beaten the informant and others by lathi, danda, iron rod. That the alleged incident took place as the informant on 25.06.2022 but the first information report has been lodged on 02.07.2022 i.e. more than 7 days delay, without giving any explanation with regard to the delay caused in lodging FIR, which is questionable and doubtful as the informant aforesaid FIR on basis of legal advice to harass the applicant and his family members and also for blackmailing for money. That initially the injured persons have been brought for their medical at C.H.C. Kunda, Pratapgarh on 25.06.2022 around 10.30 hours, where their medical reports have been prepared and referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. The photo/typed copies of the medical reports dated 25.06.2022 of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That thereafter, the injured have brought to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj on the very same day i.e. 25.06.2022, where the C.T. Scan of all three injured persons have been conducted. The photo/ typed copies of the S.T. Scan reports of the injured persons dated 25.06.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That on a bare perusal of the medical reports of the injured person, they seem to be forged and fabricated so for concern to the S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj as the 2 C.T. Scan report has been handwritten while one is computerized. That after about two months the C.T. Scan of the injured person, the supplementary medical report of two injured were prepared on 06.08.2022 and about four months later the supplementary medical of the third injured was prepared on 01.10.2022 by the C.H.C., Kunda, Pratapgarh. The photo/ typed copies of the supplementary medical reports of the injured dated 06.08.2022 & 01.10.2022 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. th That the statement of the informant has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the concerned police on 03.07.2022, in which he almost repeated his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 03.07.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the statements of the injured were also recorded by the concerned police on 25.07.2022 and 24.09.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the statement of the informant. The typed copy of the statements of the injured are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the version of the injured has not collaborated with the medical report as the injured sustained injuries. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant and informant are residents of the same village and have a dispute regarding the land. That the informant is arrogant person and has enmity with some other villagers, as a result of the same on 25.06.2022, the informant and others fought with other, and they sustained injuries but later after well plan the informant cooked a false and fabricated story to falsely implicate the applicant and his brothers in the said case crime. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant and his brothers were not in the village at the time of the incident and they were in Punjab, where they were working since long back. That the applicant and his brothers have been arrested by the concerned police on 11.08.2022, when the applicant and his brothers were retruned to their village on occation of the Rakshabandhan, which has been itself clered by the arresting memo. That there is no independent witness of the case crime, which also creat doubts upon the prosecution story. That it is also relevant to mention here that no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said application and the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with the collusion of the concerned police, Applicant has no concern with the said offence. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered, in the interest of Justice. That without proper investigation of the case crime, the investigating officer has submitted the charge against the applicant and his brothers bearing charge sheet No. 228 of 2022 under Section 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. on 03.10.2022 That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report. That there is no criminal history of the applicant accept present case That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3733 of 2022 before Additional Session Judge, Room No. 3, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 17.01.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2022 without committing any offense as alleged by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 to Case Crime No. 169 of 2022 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice during the pendency of case.


I, Jaybeer Ali aged about 47 years son of Shri Sikandar resident of Kalua Ghat, Aoripur Naugir, Ramganj, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Occupation – labour, Education – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files 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 Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the informant namely Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report and stated therein as the informant and his team (other police personnel) got information in regard of huge Adulterated liquor, rapper and equipment for packaging/making liquor at poultry form nearby Kalua Ghat and his team raid at said poultry form where the 2 persons were arrested on the spot, they were working with the adulterated liquor. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 07.04.2006 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the name of the applicant mentioned in first information report as Azeem Khan at serial No. 2 of accused column, while his name is Aziz Khan. That the real fact of the incident is that the applicant is falsely implicated by the concerned police for showing their good work and also for extraneous reasons. That there is no concerned with the said allegation as alleged by the informant. The applicant is only labour/chaukidar in poultry form and he was present at time of raid conducted by the team. That here it is relevant to mention that the applicant was working in said poultry form as labour and also working as chaukidar so he was also found at night. At time raid the applicant informed the applicant regarding his status in poultry form but for showing his good work and conduct, named in first information report. That thereafter the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime, which is baseless and illegal as the applicant are not involved in any criminal activity as alleged against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the nothing has been recovered from the applicant, the recovery which has been made related to case crime is incorrect and wrong. That the informant levelled the charges upon the applicant for working with the illegal liquor, which is wrong and incorrect. The informant with ill intension incorporate the applicant’s name in said first information report. That it is relevant and most important to mention here that where the concerned police raided at alleged place i.e. poultry form of Shri Guddu Singh alias Kedarnath, which has no any concerned with the said place with the applicant in any manner as alleged against him. That the informant falsely implicates the applicant, in the said crime, which is baseless and illegal due to ulterior motive. That the nothing was recovered in the regard of Adulterated liquor from the applicant in any manner by the investigation officer. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 255, 272 I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 at Police Station – Udaypur, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That the applicant is 61 year old person and also he is under treatment and needs proper treatment. The photocopy of the adhar card and medical treatment papers of the applicant is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was falsely implicated by the informant in said case crime with collusion of the concerned police. That there is no credible evidence on record, which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed this crime in question and the evidence available on record, itself shows that no prima facie offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 255, 272 I.P.C., 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 is made out against the applicant. That till yet the charge sheet has not filed by the concerned police in said case crime. That neither any evidence was found against the applicant nor has any motive been assigned to the applicant in the present case except general allegations against the applicant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1609 of 2018 before Session Judge and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 25.09.2018. The photo copy of the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 02.09.2018 without committing any offence as alleged against the applicant by the informant. That there is no possibility of the applicant’s conviction because he has not committed the crime in question as alleged by the informant. That the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from the applicant while the nothing has been recovered from the applicant. 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, Ranvijay Singh aged about 20 years son of Shri Lalji Singh resident of Village – Soti Ka Purwa, Panchmahua, Police Station - Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Studying, Education – Student of B.A. 3rd year, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under, 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 doing pairavi and 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 the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is 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 08.12.2019 at about 20.30 Hours, the informant Shri Ravindra Singh Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 03 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 283 of 2019 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 08.12.2019 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions is the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in 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 28.11.2019. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart 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 showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 08.12.2019 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act:- Case Crime No. 109 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 286, 308, 325 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been released on bail by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh on 04.08.2020. Case Crime No. 83 of 2017 under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2)V of S.C. & S.T. Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 16.07.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court, which has been corrected vide order dated 03.08.2018. The photocopies of the orders passed by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh on 04.08.2020 and order dated 16.07.2018 & 03.08.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that apart from above cases, the applicant has been also falsely implicated in below mentioned case crimes, which are as under: Case Crime No. 104 of 2017 under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, in which, the applicant has been released on bail by the court concerned on 06.08.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh. Case No. 2 of 2019 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 initiated but same has been quashed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 20.03.2020. Case Crime No. 60 of 2020 under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, the bail application of the applicant is pending before the court concerned due to Covid-19. The photocopies of the orders dated 06.08.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Pratapgarh & order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this application. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a poor villager and common man of society. He is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involve any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is student and belongs to respected family of society. The applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. That the applicant does not any committed 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 the informant alleged that the applicant is gang leader while in Case Crime No. 83 of 2017 under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2)V of S.C. & S.T. Act, at Police Station – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, the name of the applicant came in light from the statement of another accused, in which the applicant has granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court. The applicant have no any gang and not the leader of the same. 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 – Bhagrai, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2020 without committing any offense and the applicant is convicted previously by the competent court of law. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1305 of 2020 before the Bail rejected by Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 07.09.2020. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.09.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 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, Anand Kumar                                                    Smt. Khurshida Bano aged 35 years wife of Iqbal Ahmad resident of resident of in front of civil Court, Subhash Nagar, kunda District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Housewife, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is wife of the applicant and doing pairvi of applicant in the above noted case duly authorized by him and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed in the instant affidavit. That the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is 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 02.09.2020 at about 11.41 Hours, the informant Shri Devendra pratap Singh, In-Charge Station House Officer, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 2 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 370 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 – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The certified  and typed copy of the first information report dated 02.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions are the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in 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 28.08.2020. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart 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 showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in several case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 02.09.2020 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act mentioning the Two cases mentioned below:- Case Crime No. 112 of 2020 under Sections 307,504,506 IPC and 4/5 of explosive act , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. In which the applicant has granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 19.11.2020. Case Crime No. 365 of 2019 under Sections 3/25 of Arms act , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant has granted bail by the Additional Chif judicial magistrate on 31.10.2019. That it is relevant to mention here that apart from above cases, the applicant has been also falsely implicated in below mentioned case crimes, which are as under: Case Crime No. 817 of 2014 under Sections, 396, 302, 201, 412, 34 of IPC, related to Police Station – Munshiganj, District – Amethi, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 193 of 2014 under Sections, 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, related to Police Station – Kotwali, District – Sultanpur, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 175 of 2016 under Section 110G of Cr.P.C.. related to, Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The aforesaid case is not comes under the criminal history category. Case Crime No. 215 of 2016 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gunda Act related to Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of Bail orders 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 alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involved any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That after arresting the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 112 of 2020 under Sections 307,504,506 and 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act,1908 , at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, the concerned police falsely implicated the applicant. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a labour and a sole earner of family, as he is in the jail since 20.04.2020 the family is facing trouble for survival That the applicant does not any committed 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 – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 20.04.2020 without committing any offense and the applicant is not convicted previously by any competent court of law. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 1655 of 2021 before the Bail rejected by  Additional                                                                                Special Session judge (Gangster) Pratapgarh on 15.09.2021, and same has been rejected on 15.09.2020. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.09.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the another accused of the case crime namely Hashim khan is in jail. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 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, Hari Narayan Singh aged about 62 years son of Shri Sangam Singh resident of Village – Muraini, Dhangarh, Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Occupation – Agriculture, Qualification – Literate, do hereby solemnly affirm and states on oath as under, 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 doing pairavi and 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 the photo of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is 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 09.04.2021 at about 20.25 Hours, the informant Shri Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, In charge Inspector, Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh lodged a first information report against 06 persons including the applicant at Case Crime No. 69 of 2021 under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Gangster Act’) in Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 09.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the applicant along with his companions is the active member of the a gang, who is committing the offences in 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 03.04.2021. The photo and typed copy of the gang chart is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the Gang chart prepared on the basis of case crime no.	79 of 2020 under sections- 302,307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 147 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which applicant granted bail on 22.12.2022 by this Hon’ble court. (Crl.misc.case.no. 13283(B) of 2022) Manish Singh versus State of U.P. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 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 showing his good and hard work, falsely implicate the applicant in some case crimes, which are pending before him and thereafter finally lodged the said first information report dated 09.04.2021 under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act:- Case Crime No. 27 of 2009 under sections 323+ of I.P.C. and  3(i)x S.c.S.t Act, at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which order passed by juvenile justice board Pratapgarh dated 14.12.2021	is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the case crime no. 139 of 2009 under section 110-g Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, proceeding is lapse of time. That the case crime no. 290 of 2009 under section 110-g Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, proceeding is lapse of time. Case Crime No. 79 of 2020 under sections- 302,307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 147 of I.P.C., at Police Station – Sangramgarh, District – Pratapgarh, in which applicant granted bail on 22.12.2022 by this Hon’ble court. (Crl.misc.case.no. 13283(B) of 2022) Manish Singh versus State of U.P. That the case crime no. 434 of 2022 under section- 506 of I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali city that the above case till today not to judicial remand of the applicant. N.C.R no. 81 of 2011 under section -323, 504, 506, 427, of I.P.C. Police Station – Sangramgarh, District- Pratapgarh. That the above case is wrongly mentioned no concern of the applicant. That the accept aforesaid mention case no criminal history. That it is relevant to mention here that the all co-accused of the case crime granted bail by court below. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is a poor villager and common man of society. He is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involve any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. He further does not committed any offence for his economical and physical benefit due to which the local area people are under the threat as such allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant belongs to respected family of society. The applicant is neither member of alleged gang as alleged in the first information report nor involves any crime as alleged against him in the gang chart by the informant. That the applicant does not any committed 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 – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is in jail since 26.05.2020 without committing any offense. That the applicant had moved his bail application bearing number 10 of 2023 before Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge(Gangster) room no. 2, Pratapgarh and same has been rejected on 10.01.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 10.01.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Court. 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 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.