I, Rakesh Kumar Shukla aged about 50 years son of Ram Krishna Shukla resident of Village – Balla Laru, Police Station – Maheshganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the uncle (Bade Papa)/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown persons on 12.07.2022 at 01.20 hours by the informant namely Smt. Aakanskha Chandra daughter of Late Prem Chandra Yadav resident of E-2/661, Vinit Khand, Gomiti Nagar, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 under Sections 302, 394 I.P.C. at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh regarding the incident dated 11.07.2022. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 12.07.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 12.07.2022, the father of the informant namely Prem Chandra Yadav (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was OLA driver and on 10.07.2023 he left his house around 08.00 PM and when he did not return to home. On 11.07.2022 around 08.12 AM, the informant received a call from the concerned Police Station, who informed that the father of the informant had been murdered and his body found. That the body of the deceased was brought to the P. M., Pratapgarh for conducting the post-mortem on 11.07.2022, where the post-mortem was conducted and the cause of the death was ascertained as ‘Asphyxia”. The photo/ typed copy of the post-mortem report dated 11.07.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the post-mortem of the deceased does not collaborate with the prosecution story. As per the post-mortem report, the time of the death of the deceased was 17.30 hours to 23.30 hours on 10.07.2022, while as per the confessional statement, the applicant murdered the deceased at 03.00 hours on 11.07.2022. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and the same depends upon the concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in her first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161  Cr.P.C. on 12.07.2022 in which the informant repeated her first information report version and some additional supportive facts. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 12.07.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That a forged and fabricated arresting-cum-recovery memo was prepared by the concerned police on 18.07.2022 and showed that the applicant was arrested by them and also recovered Wagon R car and other belongings. The typed copy of the arresting/recovery memo dated 18.07.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That during the time of preparation of the arrest/recovery memo, Sections 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC IPC have been added to the case crime by the investigating officer. That it was very strange that in the last third line of the arresting-cum-recovery memo stated as “QnZ dk etcwu i<dj lqukdj loZ lEcfU/kr ds gLrk{kj cuk;s tk jgs gSa” and in the last time stated “QnZ dh izfr vfHk;qDr dks nh x;h ftls xqLls esa QkMdj dj Qsad fn;kA” If the said memo was destroyed by the applicant then how the team has been put their signature on the same, and if second has been prepared then it has not mentioned in the memo, meaning thereby the said memo is anti dated and time. That the confessional statement of the applicant has been written/ prepared by the investigating officer as per his wish and tried his best to collaborate with the alleged incident and witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. only to prove the offense against the applicant whereas the applicant has not given any confessional statement. The typed copy of the confessional statement of the applicant dated 18.03.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded by the concerned police on 18.07.2022 under the life threat, in which the applicant said everything as narrated by the concerned police. That it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the investigating officer in the instant case and his confessional statement and there is no evidentiary value in the eye of the law relating to the confessional statement. That the investigating officer has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because the applicant has not committed any offense. The investigating officer concocted the story and stated that the applicant had confessed his guilt during his arrest. That it was also interesting the applicant stated in his confession that he had thrown the number plate of the vehicle in the Ganga River but the cloths containing the blood of the deceased had been carried by him since 11.07.2022 in the recovered vehicle. That it is also unbelievable as stated by the concerned police regarding the recovery of the alleged murder weapon by the applicant has murdered the deceased after well thought, then there is no chance of keeping the recovered murder weapon. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 18.07.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the real story is that a first information report dated 16.05.2022 bearing case crime No. 178 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366 of IPC has been lodged at Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh, in which the applicant was named. That on 18.07.2022, the applicant was arrested with the girl and thereafter the investigating officer, prepared a arresting-cum-recovery memo on 18.07.2022, on which the applicant and recovered girl put their signature. That, when the Investigating Officer of Case crime No. 178 of 2022 was informed regarding the recovery of the girl and the arrest of the applicant, both investigating officers, conspired against the applicant and concerned police for showing his good work, destroyed the original arrest-cum-recovery and two separate forged and fabricated memo have been prepared by showing different place and time and the applicant has falsely implicate in aforesaid case crime. That thereafter, the investigating officer of the case crime, submitted charge sheet No. 260 of 2022 against the applicant on 27.08.2022 under Sections 394, 302, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC. That the deceased was murdered by unknown persons but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime. That due to malafide intention, the investigating officer for extraneous reasons, falsely implicated in the first information report after knowing everything about the incident, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concern with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and the allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is totally against truth and is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has a motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself shows that no prima-facie offense under Sections 394, 302, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application No. 643 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 13.03.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.03.2023 passed by court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant is in jail since 18.07.2022 without committing any offense. That the applicant is also named in case crime No. 178 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 of IPC has been lodged at Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail, in relation to Case Crime No. 265 of 2022 under Sections 394, 302, 411, 420, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C. relating to the Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Babban Singh aged about 25 years son of Samar Bahadur Singh resident of Dadauli, Post – Raghauli, Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – High School, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is relative of applicant No. 2 and Pairokar 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 herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated on the first page of this affidavit and photocopy of Voter ID of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That this is first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the Hon'ble Court and not 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 have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 07 of 2014 under section 302 I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh on 25.01.2014. The first information report is lodged by the brother of deceased namely Dev Prasad Patel. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the according the First Information Report the prosecution story is, the deceased has Tata Magic registration No. UP 32 DN – 3659 and same was operated by the deceased. When on 24.01.2014 the deceased was not come to home then the complaint start searching him. Next morning i.e. 25.01.2014 at 05.30 AM the body of complaint’s brother was found on the seat of driver of his own vehicle at Bhadchak – Dandauli road near Mahauta. There were multiple gun shots injuries shown on the body of the deceased and blood was oozing and some gun shots are also found on front of vehicle. That the complaint lodge the first information report on the suspicious ground due to old enmity with the father of applicant and another person namely Kamlesh. That the first information report lodge against the applicant and three other persons on the suspicious and baseless ground. That the statement of complaint recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day.  The compliant supported the first information report version. The type copy of the statement of the complaint under section 161 Cr.P.c. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the post mortem of the deceased done on 26.01.2014 at District Hospital, Pratapgarh. As per post mortem report the cause of death of the deceased is comuama and hammarage and shock as a reamly of Antimortem fire arms injury. The true photo/type copy of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That after two days on 27.01.2014, after lodging the first information and giving the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the complaint recorded his further statement (Mazeed Bayan) before the investigation officer and build a new prosecution story and stated, time of the incident, one witness namely Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo (brother-in-law of the brother of deceased namely Krishna Kumar Patel) is present and see the incident. That as per information given by the Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo the compliant stated in his further statement that at the time of incident, when the multiple gun shots are fired by the accused persons, at the same time one accused had also injured by the gun shot but the Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo not identified the injured accused, while the Dinesh Kumar alias Baloo indentified the all four accused by name. The type copy of the further statement (Mazeed Bayan) dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the brother of the deceased namely Krishna Kumar Patel also recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. before the authority concerned on 27.01.2014 and stated on 24.01.2014 at the incident place, the deceased and all four accused person are chatting with together and when he ask to the deceased about the meeting then the deceased replies everything is fine and supporting the further statement of the complaint.  The type copy of the statement of brother of the deceased dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the son of the deceased namely Amarjeet Patel also recorded his statement before the investigating officer on 27.01.2014 under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also supported the statement of his uncle statement namely Krishna Kumar Patel. There was no any change in the both statements except style of stating his statements. The type copy of the statement of son of the deceased dated 27.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That the so called eye witness namely Dinesh Kumar alias Babloo recorded his statement before the investigation officer on 29.01.2014 under section 161 Cr.P.C.. The so called eye witness stated in his statement, he was present at the time of the incident i.e. 08.30 PM of 24.01.2014. The so called eye witness identified the accused persons. The type copy of the statement so called eye witness dated 29.01.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That the applicant is surrendered before the C.J.M., Pratapgarh on 13.02.2014 and applicant sent to jail. That as a matter of fact nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant and whatever recovery of the Rifle has been shown on his pointing out on 20.02.2014 by the investigation officer is totally false and baseless. The above recovered Rifle is licensed to the mother of applicant namely Smt. Rekha Singh and same were revered from applicant’s house. The photo copy/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 20.02.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this Affidavit. That after the recovery of the aforesaid Rifle, the investigation officer added the new section 25/27 of Arms Act on 20.02.2014. That the first information report lodged against the four persons. After the investigation, the investigation officer filed the charge sheet against the applicant and two other persons in court concerned on 05.05.2014. That the no any specific roll was assigned by the prosecution against the applicant or any accused. That a contradiction in the statement of the so called eyewitness and informant’s statement, according the eyewitness he was seeing the incident at the time of occurrence and he was not informed to police or the informant at that time. That the so called eyewitness has seen the incident at the dark and foggy night of the cold weather, which is highly suspicious. That the so called eyewitness is not disclose the about the incident to anyone till the crimination of the deceased, this is also highly suspicious and same is planted eyewitness after the post mortem of the deceased. That the investigation officer recovered the Rifle only showing the good work of the police department. That the recovery of the Rifle is highly suspicious and contradictory because of the aforesaid Rifle is licensed to the mother of the applicant and the same was never used by the applicant. That the applicant perusing B.A. I year from M. A. S. Degree College, Shekhpur Ashik, Kunda, District – Pratapgarh. That the so called eyewitness is stated in his statement he identified the accused persons and during the firing the one accused was injured. But all accused presently in District Jail, Pratapgarh and has not received any fire arm injury. This is unbelievable as the eyewitness stated in his statement. That the so called eyewitness stated in his statement he saw the incident in the front light of the Tata Magic but he not reveal which accused fired his fire arm on the deceased. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there is no any eye witness of the case and it is a case of forged and planted eyewitness and evidence and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicants are respectable persons of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities and has no any criminal history. That there is no chance of 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 applicants are in Jail since 13.02.2014. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if so granted by this Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.05.2014. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 17.05.2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicants be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial.


I, Vinod Kumar aged about 40 years son of Shri Ram Kishun resident of Village – Muhilamau, Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and her photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the 2 persons including the applicant on 19.03.2022 at 17.35 hours by the informant namely Dharmendra under Sections 304 I.P.C. at Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli regarding murder of his brother namely Bipendra Yadav only on basis of wrong, false and presumption, with regard to incident dated 18.03.2022. The certified/ typed copy of the first information report dated 19.03.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 19.03.2022 the brother of the informant namely Bipendra Yadav (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) alongwith his two friends went to the Mama’s house of the applicant on occasion of the Holi on 18.03.2022. When they were returning to home at that time the applicant and others hooted them and thereafter the applicant and others have beaten them and lastly the applicant trampled his tractor on head of the deceased due to which the deceased sustained head injuries and during the treatment he died on 18/19.03.2022 in KGMU, Lucknow. That the inquest report of the deceased body was prepared by the concerned police on 19.03.2022 in presence of several persons at KGMU, Lucknow. That the body of deceased was brought to the KGMU Mortuary, Lucknow for conducting post mortem on very same day i.e. on 19.03.2022, where the post mortem was conducted and the cause of the death ascertained as ‘anti-mortem head injuries”. The photo/ typed copy of the post mortem report dated 19.03.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the version of the first information report is totally false and baseless and same depends upon concocted story as such nothing happened as alleged by the informant in his first informant report. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161  Cr.P.C. on 19.03.2022 in which the informant all most repeated his first information report version and stated that the applicant murdered the deceased, which itself false, incorrect and on the basis of presumption. The type copy of the statement of the informant dated 19.03.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That on the applicant surrendered before court concerned on 28.03.202 in relation to the said case crime. That the investigating officer on 19.04.2022 recorded the statements of the two eyewitness namely Karan and Akash, who went with the deceased, said that the applicant and deceased earlier fight and having enmity with each other and on 18.03.2022, the applicant without any reason abusing the deceased and deceased was pushed before the tractor of the applicant by other co-accused and the applicant hit the deceased and run away from the incident place.  The typed copy of the statement of the two eye-witnesses dated 19.04.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That it is also unbelievable as stated by the informant that after trampling the tractor upon the head of the deceased by the applicant but he sustained only three injuries and was still alive. That the real story is that the applicant has no issue with the deceased as stated by the eye-witnesses of the case crime in their statement. That on 18.03.2022 was Holi and the applicant and others have enjoying the festival and as usual when the deceased and others were passing the applicant and others have thrown the colors upon them. That for the said reason, the deceased abused the applicant and others who were thrown the color upon him. The applicant tried to restrain the deceased for abusing as on Holi its happen usually but the deceased become aggressive and started manhandling with the applicant. That when the family members of the applicant came to know about said incident then they called back him to home alongwith his tractor. When the applicant started his tractor to returning his home, the deceased stand in front of tractor and was not giving pass to the applicant. That thereafter the friend of the applicant, who also named in the first information report, tried to side the deceased at that time he slipped and fallen and sustained the injuries and during treatment died. That thereafter on the basis of the legal advice, the applicant and others accused has been falsely implicated in the said crime case on 19.03.2022 without any rhyme and reason. That thereafter without proper investigation and without considering the fact of the case the charge sheet submitted against the applicant and another under Sections 304 of IPC on 24.04.2022 bearing charge sheet No. 148 of 2022. That the deceased sustained the injuries due to his own fault and arrogance but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case crime by the informant for his self-satisfaction. That due to malafide intention, the informant for his self-satisfaction lodged the first information report against the applicant, while he has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the applicant has no concerned with the murder of the deceased in any manner as alleged by the concerned police and allegation against the applicant and also the prosecution story is so far from the truth and same is not reliable in manner. That neither the applicant has motive nor has any reasonable motive been assigned to him to commit the crime in question. That there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 304 of I.P.C. at Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 28.03.2022 without committing any offense. That apart from aforesaid case crime, against the applicant, two other cases have been lodged against the applicant, which are as under: - Case Crime No. 207 of 2019 under Sections 147, 307, 325, 323, 504 of IPC and 3(2)(5) of S.C. & S. T. Act related to Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 14.11.2019 by this Hon'ble High Court. Case Crime No. 398 of 2019 under Section 2/3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act related to Police Station – Bhadokhar, District – Raebareli, in which the applicant has been granted bail on 20.01.2020 by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopies of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant moved bail application No. 1064 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 25.05.2022. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 25.05.2022 passed by court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of his trial.


I, Mohd. Naseem aged about 27 years son of Khaleel Ahamad resident of Mauli, Police Station - Manikpur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self Employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the cousin brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and three family members of the applicant on 18.12.2013 on 09:15 hours by the mother of the deceased namely Shahnaz Bano, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of wrong facts, mentioning the incident took place on 18.12.2013. The photocopy of the first information report dated 18.12.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the informant stated in the first information report, the marriage of daughter of informant namely Nashreen Bano was solemnized with applicant on 07.01.2013 in District – Pratapgarh and expend the money according her capacity. Just after marriage, the applicant and his family member was demanding dowry as one Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- and when the demand of the applicant and his family members hav not fulfilled in result of that they brutally murdered his daughter. That the after the marriage the deceased came in house of the applicant and she was short tempered lady, just after few days of marriage the deceased requested to the applicant to leave his house with him and residing separately with deceased because the applicant has sole bread earner of the family and his income was not much as the deceased think. When they leave the family then the earning of the applicant is little bit better for the deceased. That the applicant always denied for leaving his house and family members because he was sole bread earner of the family and without him the family members of the applicant has been ruined but the deceased always quarreled with the applicant for leaving the family member of the applicant and wants to settle with the applicant another place. That the when the applicant not ready to leave his house and family member, the deceased became annoyed and starts quarreled with mother and sisters of the applicant, who is also named in first information report. The deceased having the relation with another person, the applicant always stopping her for such type activity but she was not stopping, even always chatting over her mobile phone. That when the deceased has not stopped therefore the applicant destroyed the mobile phone of the deceased, then in her safeguard and public defamation of applicant and his family members, the deceased always shouting and rumoring as the applicant and his family members were demanding the dowry from the deceased. That the deceased day by day became aggressive and on 17.12.2013 the deceased demanded the mobile phone of the applicant to make call but the applicant denied for same and after taken food, he was go to sleep. The deceased as she was short tempered lady, she committed suicide in her room. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 18.12.2013 before Panchat and all are opined as the deceased was died due to hanging but for proper investigation the post mortem is necessary. That the post mortem was done on body of the deceased on 18.12.2013 in District Hospital, Pratapgarh at 4.45 PM. The photocopy of the post mortem report dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer on 18.12.2013 wherein the informant repeated the version of her first information report in detail. The type copy of the statement of informant dated 18.12.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the applicant belongs to very poor family and running vegetable shop on footpath, by which he earns only for livelihood money but the informant alleged the applicant and his family demanded one Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- same is unbelievable. That charge sheet filed by the investigation officer on 12.02.2014 against applicant including his mother under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act. That the applicant has been surrendered before the court 15.08.2017 and moved the bail application before the court concerned and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 12.12.2014. The copy of the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 15.08.2017 and has no criminal history. That investigating officer has not found any evidence against the other accused on the basis of statements of the spot witnesses. That the applicant was running vegetable shop for the survival/livelihood of his family members but the deceased always pressurized him to bring her to another and the deceased was always quarreled for this issue with the applicant but the economic status of the applicant has not allowed bringing the deceased to another place. That on date of incident i.e. 17.12.2013, the deceased was start quarreling with applicant and demanding the mobile phone after dined for same she run away in room and locked from inside and committed suicide. That on basis of said issue the deceased committed suicide and nothing was done by the applicant as alleged by the informant and proved the concerned police. That the applicant has no issue with the deceased in his life except above mentioned but the informant has lodged first information report on the wrong facts. That there is no any evidence found by the investigating officer in regard of demand of the dowry. After suicide of the deceased the informant cooked this story overnight. That the applicant is innocent and due to take revenge with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime and the only evidence against the applicant in regard of alleged offence is only false story and baseless ground, which was by the informant and the police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and informant as the applicant committing the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive, for the money, has been fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Durgesh Pratap Singh aged about 38 years son of Shri Brijendra Pratap Singh resident of Pure Purviyan Ka Purwa, Police Station - Kunda, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That 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 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 the Hon'ble 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. 386 of 2023 lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh on 23.10.2023 at 19.30 hours, against the applicant, his brother and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). The first information report is lodged by Shri Kamlesh Singh son of Shri Tribhuwan Singh resident of Village - Sarai Taluke Sahavpur, Dahiyavan, Bazar Soravan, Ganga Nagar, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’). The certified copy of the first information report dated 23.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that the marriage of the applicant and his daughter namely Anjali Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized before two years. On 22.10.2023 the deceased was physically assutled and was murdered by the applicant and two others by strangulation. That it is relevant to mention here that the informant planned and falsely implicated the applicant and his family members to get financial benefit. Thereafter on the basis of legal advice, the first information report has been lodged against the applicant and his family members on wrong and baseless facts. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 23.10.2023 in the presence of the Panchan and also in the presence of the informant and applicant, in which they unanimously stated that the deceased committed suicide herself. The photo/typed copy of the inquest report dated 23.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem on 24.10.2023 at District Hospital, Pratapgarh wherein the post-mortem was done by doctors, and the cause of death was ascertained as ‘Anti-mortem hanging”. And no any injury was found on the body of the deceased. The photo/type copy of the post-mortem report dated 24.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That according to the post-mortem report, the time of death of the deceased was about one day back, which is also not collaborated with the prosecution story. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2023 and therein the informant repeated his first information report version in another manner and tried to develop his prosecution story to fill the loopholes of the prosecution story to send the applicant behind the bar merely being the husband of the deceased. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 24.10.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the mother of the deceased was also recorded by the concerned police under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 07.11.2023 in which she repeated the version of the informant in her own words and tried their best to falsely implicate the applicant and his family members in said case crime. The photocopy of the statement of the mother of the deceased dated 07.11.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and the deceased was solemnized according to the Hindu rituals. That nothing has been demanded from the applicant and his family from the informant and his family as dowry prior to and after the marriage as alleged against the applicant and others. That initially the relationship between the applicant and the deceased was good enough and there was no dispute between the applicant and the deceased. That later on, the deceased wanted to live separately from the other family members of the applicant and after creating a regular nuisance in the family by the deceased therefore to avoid family disputes with the deceased, the applicant started to live separately with other family members but thereafter the demands of the deceased increase day by day. That after the separation from the brother & sister-in-law, the deceased was not happy and she started pressruzing the applicant for shifting to another district and finding a job at that place, for which the applicant was not ready. That due to the denial of leaving the village, the deceased was annoyed and stopped talking with the applicant and also did not properly take care of little son. That prior to that incident, the deceased several times locked herself in the room but always opened the door within a couple of hours. The applicant and other family members of the applicant were well aware of the short-tempered nature of the deceased thus the applicant was rest assured that the door would open soon. That due to her shot-tempered nature, committed suicide due to her own reasons but the informant has lodged the first information report against the applicant and others for his self-satisfaction. That here it is relevant to mention that the deceased was a short-tempered lady and she became more aggressive and also not in a position to make good decisions due to her anger and committed suicide. That the informant due to extraneous reasons lodged the first information against the applicant and his family members after getting legal advice just for his satisfaction while he is well aware that his daughter herself committed suicide for her own reasons. That according to the prosecution story, it clearly reveals that the story of the prosecution is based on only presumption and concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant is being the husband of the deceased falsely implicated in the said case crime by the informant along with his family while the deceased committed suicide for her own reasons. That the informant due to extraneous reasons named the brother & sister-in-law of the applicant in the case, and during the Investigation Office, they have been exonerated from all charges. That the investigating officer without proper investigation of the case crime submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and others under bearing Charge Sheet on 17.11.2023 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The photocopy of the charge sheet dated 17.11.2023 submitted in case crime is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima facie offense is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which was given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That no involvement in the said case as alleged in the first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. 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 has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. 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/accused is in jail since   25.10.2023 without committing any crime. 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 Hon’ble Court. That the applicant is the father of the 10 months baby, who is presently residing with the deponent. That the applicant is ready and willing to file adequate surety as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail application bearing Bail Application No. 3522 of 2023 but the same has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on insufficient grounds vide order dated 19.01.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 19.01.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. 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. 386 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the case.


I, Mohd. Naseem aged about 27 years son of Khaleel Ahamad resident of Mauli, Police Station - Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – Self Employed, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the cousin brother of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this .  No any other bail application pending before this  or rejected by this . That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against applicant and three family members of the applicant on 18.12.2013 on 09:15 hours by the mother of the deceased namely Shahnaz Bano, under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of wrong facts, mentioning the incident took place on 18.12.2013. The photocopy of the first information report dated 18.12.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the informant stated in the first information report, the marriage of daughter of informant namely Nashreen Bano was solemnized with applicant on 07.01.2013 in District – Pratapgarh and expend the money according her capacity. Just after marriage, the applicant and his family member was demanding dowry as one Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- and when the demand of the applicant and his family members hav not fulfilled in result of that they brutally murdered his daughter. That the after the marriage the deceased came in house of the applicant and she was short tempered lady, just after few days of marriage the deceased requested to the applicant to leave his house with him and residing separately with deceased because the applicant has sole bread earner of the family and his income was not much as the deceased think. When they leave the family then the earning of the applicant is little bit better for the deceased. That the applicant always denied for leaving his house and family members because he was sole bread earner of the family and without him the family members of the applicant has been ruined but the deceased always quarreled with the applicant for leaving the family member of the applicant and wants to settle with the applicant another place. That the when the applicant not ready to leave his house and family member, the deceased became annoyed and starts quarreled with mother and sisters of the applicant, who is also named in first information report. The deceased having the relation with another person, the applicant always stopping her for such type activity but she was not stopping, even always chatting over her mobile phone. That when the deceased has not stopped therefore the applicant destroyed the mobile phone of the deceased, then in her safeguard and public defamation of applicant and his family members, the deceased always shouting and rumoring as the applicant and his family members were demanding the dowry from the deceased. That the deceased day by day became aggressive and on 17.12.2013 the deceased demanded the mobile phone of the applicant to make call but the applicant denied for same and after taken food, he was go to sleep. The deceased as she was short tempered lady, she committed suicide in her room. That the inquest report was prepared by the concerned police on 18.12.2013 before Panchat and all are opined as the deceased was died due to hanging but for proper investigation the post mortem is necessary. That the post mortem was done on body of the deceased on 18.12.2013 in District Hospital, Pratapgarh at 4.45 PM. The photocopy of the post mortem report dated 27.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer on 18.12.2013 wherein the informant repeated the version of her first information report in detail. The type copy of the statement of informant dated 18.12.2013 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the applicant belongs to very poor family and running vegetable shop on footpath, by which he earns only for livelihood money but the informant alleged the applicant and his family demanded one Motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- same is unbelievable. That charge sheet filed by the investigation officer on 12.02.2014 against applicant including his mother under section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 The Dowry Prohibition Act. That the applicant has been surrendered before the court 10.01.2014 and moved the bail application before the court concerned and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 12.12.2014. The copy of the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 10.01.2014 and has no criminal history. That investigating officer has not found any evidence against the other accused on the basis of statements of the spot witnesses. That the applicant was running vegetable shop for the survival/livelihood of his family members but the deceased always pressurized him to bring her to another and the deceased was always quarreled for this issue with the applicant but the economic status of the applicant has not allowed bringing the deceased to another place. That on date of incident i.e. 17.12.2013, the deceased was start quarreling with applicant and demanding the mobile phone after dined for same she run away in room and locked from inside and committed suicide. That on basis of said issue the deceased committed suicide and nothing was done by the applicant as alleged by the informant and proved the concerned police. That the applicant has no issue with the deceased in his life except above mentioned but the informant has lodged first information report on the wrong facts. That there is no any evidence found by the investigating officer in regard of demand of the dowry. After suicide of the deceased the informant cooked this story overnight. That the applicant is innocent and due to take revenge with informant falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That there is no any evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime and the only evidence against the applicant in regard of alleged offence is only false story and baseless ground, which was by the informant and the police. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and informant as the applicant committing the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and false motive, for the money, has been fabricated by the concerned police. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Heera Lal aged about 53 years son of Shri Nankau resident of Village – Naya Ka Purwa hamlet of Janwamau, Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Illiterate, Occupation – Labor, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing parivi in aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph 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 application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the Jagdish/informant on 05.08.2017 against the accused applicant registered as Case Crime No. 92 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., 17, 18 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 relating to Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh regarding the incident which said to have been taken place on 22.07.2017 around 20:00 hours. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 05.08.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is in nutshell, on 22.07.2017 at 20:00 hours, the daughter of the informant namely Madhuri aged about 14 years went to backside of house for brought water from hand pump, at that time the applicant called her and taken away her on motorcycle. That after the said incident which was occurred on 22.07.2017 around 20.00 hours, the first information report has been lodged after 13 day delayed i.e. on 05.08.2017 about 16.45 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report. That the medical was conducted on 16.08.2017 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor, in which nothing has been found with regard to the rape. Here it is also relevant that there was no any external injuries found on the body of the victim and also in supplementary medical report “no spermatozoa seen in slide” and also radiological age of the victim was ascertained as 18 years. The photocopy of the medical report dated 16.08.2017 and supplementary medical report dated 21.08.2017 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the court concerned on 21.08.2017, in which the victim stated that when she was went for brought water at that time the applicant and one another Rahul, who is real brother of the applicant kidnapped her and she become unconscious, when she come in conscious, she was in Delhi. She was stayed with applicant about one week in Delhi but nothing has been done by the applicant i.e. the applicant not committed any offence in any manner with the victim. The photo/type copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Madhuri is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim i.e. Madhuri is given under the threat of her family members as such same is not reliable and having no legal sanctity and liable to be rejected. That during the investigation, the investigating officer added the Sections 17, 18 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant and brother of the applicant has also added in the first information report dated 05.08.2017. That the real fact of the incident is that the victim and applicant is fall in love and they always chatting over the mobile phone to each other, which is itself admitted by the informant of the case crime. That after knowing the fact with regard to relationship of the applicant and victim, the informant and his family members are tortured the victim. It is relevant to mention here that during the medical examination, the victim stated herself to doctor concerned as their family members tortures her, thus she leave her house with her own will with applicant. That the victim tried to convince to her family with regard to marry with applicant but the informant was not ready for their marry then the victim and applicant decided as they are major in age and therefore they will solemnize marriage with each other after standing their own feet in social. That thereafter they will leave their house on 22.07.2017 with their own will and residing in Delhi. It is also relevant to mention here that as the applicant and victim decide to marriage after some therefore they have not gone into physical relation. That the statement given by the victim before the court concerned under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is under influence of the informant as such same has no legal validity. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society and trying to establish his life but due to this false case, the future of the applicant has ruined. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant is innocent and due to obtaining money for the state government and from the applicant for withdrawing the case, falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 19.08.2017 without committing any offense. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper 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 deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Court No. 5, District – Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 30.08.2017. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 30.08.2017 passed by court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. 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, Chandrabhal aged about 58 years son of Sundar resident of Village – Parsehara, Police – Station - Ramkot, District – Sitapur, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is father of 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 herein under. That the photograph of the deponent is being pated 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 application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not 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 have falsely been implicated in case crime No. 223 of 2014 under section 323, 366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Mishrikh, District – Sitapur on 11.07.2014 at 12:30 hours against the applicant/accused. The first information report is lodged by father of the victim namely Shri Chaudhary Lal. The incident took place near about 4 months ago i.e. on 23.03.2014. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 11.07.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is, on 23.03.2014 around 04.00 P.M., the complainant with his minor daughter namely Km. Nisha Devi and family members has gone to participate in Holi Mela at Mishrikh, Sitapur where the son-in-law of the complainant i.e. the applicant met with them and bring the victim, in Mela and both has not returned till. After his best effort they have un-traceable and hence the First Information Report has been lodged against the applicant/accused. That the victim is not minor girl, her birth date is 14.07.1991 as per her high school mark sheet, in which the victim participated in year 2007 and passed out. According to her birth date her age is 23 years on date of incident. The victim is passed is graduate and completed his gradation in year 2012.  The photocopy of the high school mark sheet is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the victim was come back itself on 23.08.2014 and the complainant was produced her before concerned police. That the investigation officer recorded the statement of the victim on 23.08.2014 under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which the victim stated that she was met with applicant in Mela and go with him to meet her sister with free will, there was no any undue influence. The victim went Haridwar with applicant via public transport i.e. train and live as husband and wife but she was never raised alarm at any stage because of the victim is considering party and enjoy her life with applicant in Haridwar. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.08.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the victim clearly stated in her statement the applicant was come into the Mela to meet with her and also accepted that she was regularly meet with the applicant from since long back. That the victim further stated in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant called his parent and they have come and bring to her their home at Village – Parsehara, Police – Station, District – Sitapur and thereafter victim come her home with her parent. That the statement under 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded on 27.08.2014 by the competent authority, therein she change her statement and stated, when she was in Haridwar she was rapped by the applicant and father of the applicant and Guddu bring her to Village – Khatakri and after 2-3 days the victim bring her to Delhi and take back returned to Mishrikh crossing and leave alone, and then she was returned to her home. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 27.08.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Affidavit. That the investigating officer prepared the recovery memo on 23.08.2014 after producing the victim by her parent. The victim come the police station with her parent and her father was bring the victim before concerned police for informing in this regard. The photocopy/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 23.08.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 5 to this Affidavit. That the mother of the victim, namely Kanya Devi, moved the application for taking custody of the victim being her mother. The A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Sitapur and same has ordered to release the victim on his will on 27.08.2014. That on 16.06.2014 the victim moved a complaint before A.C.J.M., II, Sitapur against her father/ complainant, mother and sister as they have fixed her marriage without her consent and when she protest, all have beaten on 15.04.2014 and prayed that take action against all of them. That on 26.06.2014 the statement of the victim was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. by the concerned magistrate, wherein she stated that she loved with applicant and want to marry with accused but the family members want to solemnize her marriage with anyone other. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under section 200 Cr.P.C. dated 26.06.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this Affidavit. That medical of the victim was done at , Sitapur on 23.08.2014. According to medical report the “no definite opinion regarding sexual assault can be given. The photocopy of the medical report of victim dated 23.08.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this Affidavit. That the X-ray report was submitted by the concerned medical officer on 25.08.2014 by which the radiological age of the victim declared 18 years old. The photocopy of the X-ray report dated 25.08.2014 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this Affidavit. That the investing officer submitted the charge sheet before the court concerned on 03.12.2014 without considering the fact and reality of the case. That the real story of the case is that the victim has physical relationship with the applicant with her consent since long time and victim come with applicant with her own will. That the complainant lodged wrong First Information Report against the applicant, his daughter was passed her graduation in year 2012 and was know that the age of his daughter is 23 years but he stated in tahrir the girl is minor. That the victim is major in age and has her free will/consent to live with applicant therefore she was travel with applicant to several places without any issue. That the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim dated 24.08.2014 recorded under pressure of the concerned police and her parents to falsely imprecate the applicant in said crime case. That a false story cooked up by the concerned police and parent of the victim for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped victim. That the victim never raises any alarm and never told to anyone in regard of act of the applicant as she alleged in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.. 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 applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant is innocent and due to obtaining money for the state government and from the applicant for withdrawing the case, falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 01.10.2014. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper 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 deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Sitapur but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.01.2015. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 17.01.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. 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, Ajamat Ali aged about 62 years son of Shri Makabool, resident of Village – Asarahi Saraiya, Police Station - Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the aforesaid case and he is nephew of the applicant and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the photograph 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 application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by the Hansraj Kori/informant on the 06.06.2016 against the accused Nikku son of Munshiraza resident of Village – Asarahi Saraiya, Police Station - Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, registered as Case Crime No. 330 of 2016 under Sections 376, 323, 308, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)(5) S.C. & S. T. Act relating to Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh regarding the incident which said to have been taken place on 05.06.2016 around 20:00 hours. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 06.06.2016 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report the prosecution story is in nutshell, on 05.06.2016 at 20:00 hours, the daughter of the informant namely Shalu aged about 13 years gone to the field for nature call, at that time the accused Nikku forcefully rapped with her along with applicant and one another accused namely Baiku alias Kismat and they also given threaten for life. After searching the victim was found unconscious and thereafter she told everything to her mother, when she come to incident place. That it would be relevant to point out here, in the first information report the informant himself says as the first information report was lodged after asking everything from the victim Shalu but the name of the applicant is not named in the first information report. That after the said incident which was occurred on 05.06.2016 around 20.00 hours, the first information report has been lodged after one day delayed i.e. on 06.06.2016 about 21.10 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report. That the after five days of the said alleged incident i.e. on 10.06.2016 the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she stated that when she was gone for nature call at that time the Nikku rapped her and she was become unconscious thereafter the Nikku called to applicant and another accused. That the medical was conducted on 07.06.2016 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor, in which nothing has been found with regard to the rape as alleged by the victim. Here it is also relevant that there was no any external injuries found on the body of the victim and also in supplementary medical report “no spermatozoa seen in slide” and also radiological age of the victim was ascertained as 18 years. The photocopy of the medical report dated 07.06.2016 and supplementary medical report dated 13.06.2016 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That after the said alleged incident, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the court concerned on 14.06.2016, in which the victim changed her story as she was went for nature call on 06.06.2016 around 8.15PM then the accused Nikku caught her brought to brick field and call to Bhola i.e. the applicant and another person accused, thereafter all were rapped with her. She also stated in her statement, her father lodged the first information report in morning while the first information was lodged at 21.10 hours of 06.06.2016. The photo/type copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Shalu is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That in statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that the incident was taken on 06.06.2016 around 20.15 hours and her father lodged the impugned first information report in early morning whereas the first information report was lodged on 06.06.2016 about 21.10 hours. That the victim herself created doubt on the alleged offense as same was taken place or not. It is also relevant to mention here that as per victim she was rapped at brick field but she was recovered backside of her house. That the real fact of the incident is that the father of the victim i.e. informant has enmity with the applicant with regard to election of Gram Pradhan as the applicant was not supported his candidate, even he was opposed him. During election period several time the informant along with Gram Pradhan candidate Saleem Kureshi, who has win the election, threaten the applicant as you may face consequence of this oppose. That the Gram Pradhan Saleem Kureshi and the informant are good friends and in meantime the daughter of the informant became rape victim and the first information report has been lodged against the Nikku on 05.06.2016. That thereafter the informant and the Gram Pradhan Saleem Kureshi to take revenge from the applicant make plan to falsely implicate the applicant in criminal case, which is lodged by the informant against the Nakku. That in result of the conspiracy between the informant and the Gram Pradhan Saleem Kureshi, the applicant has been falsely implicate in said case crime, when the victim tell his name in statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. after 8 days of said alleged incident. That the statement given by the victim before the court concerned under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is under influence of the informant and the Gram Pradhan Saleem Kureshi as such same has no legal validity. That the trial of the case crime has been started bearing Session Trail No. 90 of 2016 and the victim has been examined on 14.12.2016 as PW-3 in said trail. That one day the all accused of the case crime forcefully fed a medicine/tablet and brings anywhere and made abortion and throw out from his house. That the informant was come back itself her father’s home and try to lodge the first information report but same has not been lodged even an compromise has been done for arranging the marriage, but thereafter the applicant and his family members are abusing and threatened for her life. That medical of the victim was done at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.07.2017 at 02:00 P.M. and Supplementary Medical Report was prepared on 06.08.2017.  According to supplementary medical report the “Radiological age is above 18 years and also no spermatozoa seen.” The photo/type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2017 and supplementary medical report dated 06.08.2017 is being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the statement of the informant/victim recorded on 10.08.2017 under section 164 Cr.P.C., in which the victim stated as per her first information report till live in applicant’s house and thereafter she change her statement and stated the his son Praveen give a medicine to her and furnished her abortion and sent her to his parent’s home. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 10.08.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this Affidavit. That the victim clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the applicant was not involve in the said case crime. The applicant is father of the Praveen due to this his name has been impleaded in the said case crime. That it is also clear in said statement, the applicant has not given any medicine to the informant and also not involved in furnishing the abortion of her. That in first information report, the informant stated she was brought anywhere for furnishing the abortion but in statement under 164 Cr.P.C. the abortion furnished at applicant’s house. That the real story of the case is that  due to familiar reason as the father of the informant/victim was died in earlier age, her three sister are married and her brother solemnized his marriage and the informant avoided by her family, as such she is immoral lady and having physical relationship with unknown persons. That the informant pregnant during her enjoyment and for escaping herself from the defamation in social or village, she came to house of the applicant and falsely alleged against his son and threaten by her to applicant and his family for solemnize the marriage with son of the applicant, when offer of the informant rejected by the applicant. That after rejection of the proposal of the informant, she become annoyed and lodged First Information Report against the applicant and his family members on the wrong and incurred facts. That the victim as herself stated in her first information report dated 29.07.2017, she is major in age and has sound mind therefore she is not influence by anyone in regard to make physical relation but as she is not decent lady, she implicate the applicant and his family members. That the first information report lodged by the informant is too much delayed more than six months and during this period she never approached to any authority concerned to take appropriate action against the accused. That a false story cooked up by the informant and parent of the victim for obtaining the money form the state government, which is given to the rapped victim. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant is innocent and due to obtaining money for the state government and from the applicant for withdrawing the case, falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 11.08.2016. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper 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 deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 17.03.2017. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 17.03.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. 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, Ram Naresh aged about 43 years son of Shri Raja Ram resident of Village – Nahar Par Hinahuh, Police Station - Nawabganj, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Labour, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother/pariokar of the applicant and doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. The photograph of the deponent is being pasted on the first page of this affidavit and a photocopy of ID proof of the deponent is being annexed with this affidavit. That the deponent further declares that the contents of the affidavit have been explained in Hindi by the counsel of the applicant to her as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That this is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant before the  and no other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 02.08.2022 at 20.20 hours against the applicant and another which has been registered as Case Crime No. 135 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354-C, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and 3(2)V, 3(2)Va of S.C. & S.T. Act. related to the Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh. The certified/type copy of the first information report dated 02.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That the prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that, on 20.07.2022 at about 12.00 A.M., when the daughter of the opposite party No. (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) was sleeping on the roof, the applicant raped her and clicked some objectionable photographs and gave a life threat. It has been further alleged that some objectionable photographs were clicked on the mobile phone of the uncle of the victim. That according to the first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 02.08.2022, the incident took place on 20.07.2022 but the first information report has been lodged after 13 days without giving any explanation, which clearly shows that the first information report was lodged on the basis of the ill legal advice for extraneous reasons. That the applicant submits before this Hon’ble Court that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in her first information report dated 02.08.2022. The first information report is highly doubtful and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said reason. That the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded on 03.08.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she almost repeated her first information report in another manner. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 03.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That on 05.08.2022 the statement of the victim has been recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she also repeated the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 05.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the victim was medically examined on 04.08.2022 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh and her medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story and nothing has been found regarding the commission of rape with her. The photo/ typed copy of the medical report dated 04.08.2022, radiology report dated 06.08.2022 and supplementary medical report dated 06.09.2022 of the victim are being annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the concerned court, in which she stated that on 20.07.2022 the applicant committed rape with her and also took some objectionable photographs and said that if she informed someone about said incident then the applicant will murdered her father. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as endorsed in CD No. 10 dated 29.08.2022 is being annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application. That the concerned police have asked for the date of birth of the victim from the Principal of the victim’s school, which has been given and stating therein that as per school records the date of birth of the victim is 14.07.2005. The photo/typed copy of the reply given to the concerned police by the Principal dated 05.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 121 of 2022 on 09.09.2022 against the applicant under Section 376, 354-C, 506 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and 3(2)V, 3(2)Va of S.C. & S.T. Act. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has not been concerned with the alleged incident in any manner, and the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to extraneous reasons. That the applicant provided the shuttering services and he also gave his services to the uncle of the victim i.e. another named accused of the case crime. That later on, the opposite party No. 2 requested to provide the shuttering and after calculation when the applicant gave an estimate of expenses then the opposite party No. 2 expresses her inability to pay said amount. That the opposite party No. 2 offered a very low amount for providing shuttering service hence the applicant denied for same therefore the opposite party No. 2 given the threat to face consequences of the same. That the opposite party No. 2 has bad relations with another accused namely Babloo, who is her brother-in-law (Devar) and she tried to falsely implicate him. That another accused, had taken some objectionable photographs of the victim and due to enmity with the opposite party No. 2, he was showing the said photographs to others, when the same fact came to know the opposite party No. 2 then she found the golden chance to falsely implicate the applicant and she lodged the first information report on the basis of the false and concocted story. That on 10.08.2022, when the applicant was arrested with another accused, the objectionable photographs of the victim were found in his mobile phone. The typed copy of the arresting-cum-recovery memo dated 10.08.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the statement of another accused has been recorded by the concerned police in which he stated that for taking revenge on the opposite party No. 2 he has shown the photos of the victim to others. The typed copy of the statement of another accused is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That there is no genuine ground found by the concerned police against the applicant but for extraneous reasons, the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in said case crime. That according to the prosecution story, it is clearly revealed that the story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of the case and there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. That apart from the present case crime, in which the first bail application is being moved by the applicant, there is no criminal history against the applicant. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Babalo filed bail before the court below and he has been granted bail by the Additional District  Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO), Pratapgarh vide its order dated 13.01.2023. The photocopy of the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the applicant had filed an application for bail before the Additional District  Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO), Pratapgarh bearing Bail Application No. 855 of 2023 but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 25.05.2023. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members in malafide intention. That the opposite party No. 2 is the mother of 9 daughters, in which the victim is her 4th daughter and she is financially too weak. She is also unable to solemnize the marriage of her daughters therefore her three daughters solemnized their marriages herself. That the opposite party No. 2 on ill advice, lodged the first information report against the applicant and another for getting the money from the state government, which has been given to the rape victims, on the basis of a false and concocted story. 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 is languishing in jail since 10.02.2022 without committing any offence. 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 Case Crime No. 135 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354-C, 506 of I.P.C., 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and 3(2)V, 3(2)Va of S.C. & S.T. Act related to the Police Station – Nawabganj, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the case, in the interest of justice.


I, Basante aged about 43 years son of Shri Munni Lal resident of Village – Survara, Police Station – Inayatnagar, District – Ayodhya, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Literate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and  state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the father/pairokar of the applicant and doing parivi in aforesaid case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case deposed herein under. That the affidavit/photo slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association 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 application on behalf of the applicant before the  and not other bail application is pending before in any court of law on his behalf. That the brief fact of the case for proper adjudication is being before this Hon'ble Court. That the first information report was logged by Shri Santlal resident of Village – Jamua, Police Station – Inayatnagar, District – Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as informant) on 10.06.2018 against the applicant registered as Case Crime No. 214 of 2019 under Sections 363 of I.P.C. and 17, 18 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Inayatnagar, District – Faizabad regarding the incident which said to have been taken place on 08.06.2018 around 10:00 hours. The true photo/type copy of the first information report dated 10.06.2018 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That according to the First Information Report dated 10.06.2018, the prosecution story is in nutshell, the applicant on 08.06.2018 around 10.00 hours abducted the daughter and niece namely Km. Jyoti & Km. Shivani respectively, who were minors. That after the said incident which was occurred on 08.06.2018 around 10.00 hours, the first information report has been lodged after 2 day delayed i.e. on 10.06.2018 about 18.31 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging first information report. That Km. Shivani was recovered by the concerned police on 10.09.2018 and handed over her family members after recording the statements of the under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C.. That the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the concerned police of the Kr. Shivani on 10.09.2018, in which stated that she went with the applicant along with sister and lived in Delhi and when her mother was expired then she returned back and recovered by the concerned police. The typed copy of the statement of the Km. Shivani dated 10.09.2018 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the medical was conducted on 16.08.2019 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor, in which nothing has been found with regard to the rape. Here it is also relevant that there was no any external injuries found on the body of the victim and also in supplementary medical report “no spermatozoa seen in slide” and also radiological age of the victim was ascertained as 18 years. The photocopy of the medical report dated 16.08.2019 and supplementary medical report dated 21.08.2019 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the court concerned on 21.08.2019, in which the victim stated that when she was went for brought water at that time the applicant and one another Rahul, who is real brother of the applicant kidnapped her and she become unconscious, when she come in conscious, she was in Delhi. She was stayed with applicant about one week in Delhi but nothing has been done by the applicant i.e. the applicant not committed any offence in any manner with the victim. The photo/type copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim Madhuri is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim i.e. Madhuri is given under the threat of her family members as such same is not reliable and having no legal sanctity and liable to be rejected. That during the investigation, the investigating officer added the Sections 17, 18 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant and brother of the applicant has also added in the first information report dated 10.06.2018. That the real fact of the incident is that the victim and applicant is fall in love and they always chatting over the mobile phone to each other, which is itself admitted by the informant of the case crime. That after knowing the fact with regard to relationship of the applicant and victim, the informant and his family members are tortured the victim. It is relevant to mention here that during the medical examination, the victim stated herself to doctor concerned as their family members tortures her, thus she leave her house with her own will with applicant. That the victim tried to convince to her family with regard to marry with applicant but the informant was not ready for their marry then the victim and applicant decided as they are major in age and therefore they will solemnize marriage with each other after standing their own feet in social. That thereafter they will leave their house on 22.07.2019 with their own will and residing in Delhi. It is also relevant to mention here that as the applicant and victim decide to marriage after some therefore they have not gone into physical relation. That the statement given by the victim before the court concerned under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is under influence of the informant as such same has no legal validity. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that story of the prosecution is based on only false, incorrect facts and grounds and also concerned police avoiding the truth of case and there is no an evidence against the applicant/accused. That the applicant has not committed any crime as alleged in the first information report and he has no concern. That there is no possibility of the applicant conviction because he has not committed the crime in question, as alleged by the prosecution. That the applicant is common man of the society and trying to establish his life but due to this false case, the future of the applicant has ruined. He has never involved in any criminal activities ever. That the applicant is innocent and due to obtaining money for the state government and from the applicant for withdrawing the case, falsely implicated in the aforesaid case crime. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they are willing to offer bail to the satisfaction of this . That the applicant/accused is in Jail since 01.11.2018 without committing any offense. That the applicant will cooperate with the trial and will not tamper 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 deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. That the applicant had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Court No. 5, District – Pratapgarh but the same has been rejected on insufficient grounds vide order dated 28.02.2019. The certified copy of bail rejection order dated 28.02.2019 passed by court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. 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.