I, Gulakhetab aged about 53 years son of Akbaluddin resident of Village - Jafarpur, Post - Kandhai, Hanumangaj, Kehi Madhupur, Police Station - Kandhai, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the __________/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 a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 28.05.2021 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 354-A, 509 of I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act.  The certified copy of the first information report dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that when he was in Rakhaha Bazar, two constables met with him, in which one of them shown the objectionable viral video of a girl. The opposite party No. 2 inquire in the area regarding the said incident then he came to know that the girl shown in the video is local. As the viral video was related to the crime against women hence the first information report was lodged by him. That on 28.05.2021, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 29.05.2021, the unknown girl was identified by the Investigation Officer and thereafter her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she revealed the name of the applicant and another along with two unknown persons. The typed copy of the statement of the victim dated 29.05.2021 is being ........... That the victim stated that she is aged about 18 years and had a love relationship with another accused namely Shyad. On 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM, when her lover called her then she went to orchard to meet him. At that place, her lover, the applicant, and two unknown persons were present and forcefully raped her. That the victim refused to get examined medically after she was produced before the medical officer of the concerned hospital on 29.05.2021 without any reason, which was duly supported by her guardian. The denial from the medical by the victim, itself creates doubt upon the prosecution's story. The photo/typed copy of the medical report dated 29.05.2021 and the radiology report dated 31.05.2021 are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That according to the radiologist, the radiological age of the victim has been ascertained as about 18 years old. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has recorded before the concerned court on 01.06.2021, in which she stated that she changed her story and stated that on 10.05.2021 around 10.00 PM she went on the road for a nature call, where 4 four persons including applicant were present and brought her on the bike and raped her and also record the video and also given threat that if she told anyone regarding the said incident then they kill her family member. The typed copy of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 01.06.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the victim regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That when the Investigation Officer found nothing against the applicant thereafter he recorded the statement of the mother & father of the victim on 28.07.2021 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they both also tried to falsely implicate the applicant in said crime along with other accused. The typed copy of the statement of the mother & father of the victim is being ............... That the real story of the case is that the has no concern with the alleged incident as alleged against him and the applicant did not know the victim. That another accused of the case crime was the lover of the victim as she herself admitted and they have physical relations with each other. That another accused was always telling about her love story with the applicant and other friends and stated that the victim is know about each of his friends as he told everything to her, whenever he met with her. That here it is relevant to mention that the victim belongs to Hindu Community while her lover i.e. another accused belongs to the Mulsim community therefore when family members came to know about their relationship then they threatened another accused. However, they met regularly and a video of intimate time has been recorded and viral by the ................... That the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and not in the viral video despite that the victim named the applicant in her statement under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., being the friend of her lover. while the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged against him. That the victim has a physical relationship with another accused, which she herself admitted despite a false story cooked up by the concerned police, and the victim so far relates to the applicant for obtaining money from the state government, which is given to the rape victim, which is Rs. 8 Lakhs in case of gang rape. That O. P. No. 2 is well aware that the victim is major in age but she has lodged the first information report saying therein that she is a minor. That the prosecution story so far concerned to the applicant as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. The victim herself admitted that she had a physical relationship of her own free WILL with another accused of the case crime but the applicant named in the case crime being the friend of the main accused of the case crime. That evidence of witnesses of fact are full of inter and intra contradictions about the incident and there is a deliberate improvement in the statement of the victim as to the manner of sexual assault, which can not be relied upon and all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are related to one other and hence they are in the category of related witnesses and as such their testimonies can not be relied upon in absence of evidence of any independent witness. That it is settled law that in every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without the consent of the lady. Here in case, the victim said that she had a love relationship with another accused, her consent was obtained by him for sexual intercourse and it is not possible, even to assume, that the victim has not given her consent for sexual intercourse to another accused and falsely implicate the applicant in said case. That without proper investigation of the case, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet No. 31B of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act on 23.08.2022 against the applicant and others. That there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid case crime. That the statement of the O. P. No. 2 under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has not collaborated with each other as such the above statement has no legal validity. That in the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the applicant did not commit the offence. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the O. P. No. 2 with malafide intentions. That the fact that the victim had refused her medical examination after leveling very serious allegations of gang rape against the applicant and others not giving any explanation for the same, indicates the possibility of false implication of the applicant. No justification or logical reason is coming forth from the victim regarding the refusal of her medical examination. The refusal of the victim to get her medical examination conducted and give samples indicates the possibility of false prosecution of the applicant and throws doubt on the veracity of her allegations against the applicant. That where the evidence of the victim was found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material and there being refusal by the victim to undergo a medical examination, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. The onus is always on the victim to prove and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. That the case of the victim is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and the story projected by the victim is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. That the victim knew the accused prior to the incident through his lover i.e. another accused. If evidence of victim is read and considered in the totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. That the victim denied to have examined medically without reason, which creates doubt in the prosecution story thus the absence of any medical report/examination of the informant would go in favour of the applicant and he is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1425 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh on 08.08.2023. The free certified copy of the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the court concerned is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the 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 furnish 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 in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 354-A, 376-D of I.P.C., 67 of Information and Technology Act, 5(G)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5, 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kandhai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Shaharookh aged about 25 years son of Ballu resident of Avnaspur Road, Kanoon Goyan, Bacharaun, Dhanaura, District - Bacharaun, District - Amroha, Religion – Muslim, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, 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 a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the second bail application. First bail application No. 1632 of (B) 2023 has been rejected by Hon’ble Shri Brij Raj Singh “J” on 25.05.2023.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopy of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Hon'ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That this second bail application is being moved before this Hon'ble High Court on some new facts and grounds, which have been left to be brought before this Hon'ble High Court for proper adjudication of the bail application. That brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 20.09.2020 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 412 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C. regarding the incident dated 08.08.2020. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 20.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his daughter went on 08.08.2020 anywhere and now returned. She stated that the applicant abducted her. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 08.08.2020 but the first information report was lodged on 20.09.2020 at 14.45 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 42-day delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 and his family lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on 22.09.2020, the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the concerned police, in which he repeated the version of his first information report. The typed copy of the statement of O. P. No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 22.09.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 21.09.2020 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 15-17 years vide report supplementary medical report dated 22.09.2020. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 30.12.2020, the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in which several new facts and tried his best to falsely implicate the applicant in the case crime. The typed copy of the further statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 30.12.2020 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she adduced new facts, which are unbelievable. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That after about 4 months of lodging the first information report, the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned, in which again new story has been developed and told by the victim. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the opposite party No. 2 and his daughter regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime goes to the root of the case rendering the prosecution case unworthy of any credit and in the instant case. That the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regularly changed her statements given under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. as such her testimony is not trustworthy. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act. 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. 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 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act is made out against the applicant. That the trial against the applicant is initiated and is going on. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been examined by the trial court as P.W. - 1 and her chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial court on 07.07.2023, in which a lot of contradictions appeared between her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C.. During the cross-examination, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2/ P.W. - 1 stated that nothing had been done by the applicant with her ever. The photo/typed copy of the chief and cross-examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2/ P.W. - 1 recorded by the trial court on 07.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That this Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 25.05.2023, when the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial within six months. The copy of the aforesaid order has been served before the trial court but after passing more than six months, the trial has not concluded yet. That there is no chance to conclude the trial of the applicant sooner as to date only the opposite party No. 2 & his daughter have been examined as P.W. - 1 & 2 and yet several witnesses are in queue for their examination as such in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his trial. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1526 of 2022 before Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 16.11.2022. The certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2020 has been annexed with the first bail application No. 1632 of (B) 2022. The photocopy of the bail rejection order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case and is not likely to hope in the future to commit any offense. That the applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.04.2022 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 412 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., 3, 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)5Ka, 3(2)v of S. C. & S. T. Act registered at Police Station – Kunda, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Shiv Kumar aged about 37 years son of Shri Dashrath resident of Mahesh Ganj Bikara, Derhava, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh Religion – Hindu, Education– Literate, Occupation –  _____________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the _________/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 a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 him as such she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 12.07.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363 of I.P.C., 3 regarding the incident dated 07.07.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in his first information report that his 16-year-old daughter, who is mentally unsound, and was under treatment left his house on 07.07.2023 around 07.30 PM and when she did not return home. The opposite party No. 2 and others have tried their best to find her but she was not found by them. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 moved an application for lodging the missing report. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 and the allegations leveled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 07.07.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 12.07.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 6 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 12.07.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 12.07.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 04.09.2023 around 2 months later, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the concerned Police Station stating therein that his daughter returned home on 03.09.2023. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she changed the entire story mentioned in the first information report by the opposite party No. 2 and adduced new facts and stated that she left her house in the midnight of 07.07.2023 and reached to Pratapgarh station. When she missed her house than she stopped a riksha pullar, who brought her to his house and thereafter brought her to the house of Pappu Chauhan. She further stated that Pappu Chauhan raped her and when he went to Delhi on 01.09.2023 thereafter the victim escaped herself and reached her house.  The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that the name of the applicant did not come to light in the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. That the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was conducted on 05.09.2023 at District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. The radiological age of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 has been ascertained as 17 to 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 06.09.2023, in which again changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that the applicant, his brother and father along with the Riksha Pullar namely Rakesh Chauhan committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim did not tell any other name in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 161 of Cr.P.C., named all male persons of the applicant’s family. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 25.09.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2 due to malafide intentions to get the monetary benefit, which has been given to the rape victims by the state government. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, his brother and father, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around two months far from her house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. 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. 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 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3424 of 2023 before Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 12.01.2024. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 12.09.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 268 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(D)(a), 323 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Patti, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Smt. Chanar Devi aged about 50 years wife of Late Ram Fer resident of Village – Gadiyani, Manraunda, District – Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad), Education– Illiterate, Occupation –  Housewiefe, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the mother/pariokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such dhe is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 she conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant on 04.11.2023 by opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366 of I.P.C., regarding the incident dated 01.11.2023. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 04.11.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report opposite party No. 2 stated in her first information report that on 01.11.2023, her 19-year-old daughter, abaducted by the applicant and another accused. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 01.11.2023 but the first information report was lodged on 04.11.2023 hours, without giving any explanation with regard to the 4 days delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the opposite party No. 2 lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That on the very same day i.e. on 04.11.2023, the statement of the opposite party No. 2 was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which she almost repeated the version of her first information report with improved facts to falsely implicate the applicant. The typed copy of the statement of the opposite party No. 2 dated 04.11.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2023 in which she stated that she is aged about 19 years and also she herself went with the applicant and another to marry with the applicant.  The typed copy of the statement of the victim is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That here it is relevant to mention that the age of the victim was mentioned as 19 years in the first information report and statements of the opposite party No. 2 & victim. That the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 06.11.2023 by the doctor concerned, therein neither any injury was found on her body nor any other incriminating findings were mentioned in the medical examination of the vicitm. The radiological age of the victim has been ascertained as 18 years vide report supplementary medical report. The photo/typed copy of the medical report of the victim along with the supplementary medical report is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the court concerned on 08.11.2023, in which she changed her version of the statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and stated that she is aged about 17 years and the applicant, another kidnapped her on 01.11.2023 and committed rape with her. The typed copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That the statement of the victim is unbelievable and beyond the imagination, once the victim admitted the relationship with the applicant in her statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and later on in the statement of the 164 of Cr.P.C., she changed her statement under the pressure of her family members. That  the victim was recovered by the concerned police on 04.11.2023, which is mentioned in the Sr. No. 8 of CD No. 1 dated 04.11.2023 and her custody was given to the opposite party No. 2 however, in the statement given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stated that she herself called her mother i.e. opposite party No. 2 when she was thrown by the applicants. That there are several material contradictions shown between the first information report and the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim regarding the manner of commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution case is unworthy of any credit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 294 of 2020 against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant, his brother, father and another on 08.12.2023. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant was working in the village of the opposite party No. 2, and met with the victim and they fallen in love and decided to marry. That the victim is belongs to another religion as such after coming to know regarding the relationship of the applicant and victim, her family threatened the applicant to face consiquences of the same. That on 01.11.2023, the victim left her house and went with the applicant to solemnized the marriage and residing with the applicant. That on 04.11.2023, the concerned police recovered the victim from Mauaima, Prayagraj, when the victim was with the applicant. That when the victim returned to her home thereafter the information report has been lodged against the applicant and another. That the whole story was cooked by the opposite party No. 2 and their family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant, which has been explained by the concerned police. That the victim has been residing almost around four days with her own WILL house but never raised any alarm at any point of time and prosecution story as narrated therein is highly improbable, improper and unnatural, and unbelievable for a prudent man. 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. 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 under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 3178 of 2023 before Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO), Pratapgarh and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 07.02.2023. A error was occured in the order and after moving the correction application, the free certified copy of the bail order was returned back to the court below for correction and correction order passed on 22.02.2024 and no free copy issued to the applicant. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the court below along with the correction order dated 22.02.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid false case.  the applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.11.2023. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 200 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), 342, 506 of I.P.C. and 5G, 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station – Dilippur, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Raj Kumar aged about 57 years son of Shri Chedi Lal resident of Sukulpur, Dahilamau, District - Pratapgarh, District - Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – ___________, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father/ pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed to the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That brief fact of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the unknown person on 09.05.2020 at 06.45 hours by Laxman Prasad Pandey son of Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey resident of Village - Barachha, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘informant’) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of IPC at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar District – Pratapgarh regarding incident dated 08.05.2020. The photo/typed copy of the first information report dated 09.05.2023 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report lodged on 09.05.2020 by the informant alleged therein a that he has paid an advance Rs. 3 Lakh to Sarvesh Tiwari for purchasing a plot in Marut Nagar but after some time he got knowledge that the plots in question are not a pure land and it is part of Sai river. That it is further alleged that the informant demanded his advance money from Sarvesh but he was avoiding to return the same. On 08.05.2020 at 11.00 AM Sarvesh Tiwari asked the informant that he come on the plot at Marut Nagar and take the advance. It is further stated that the informant along with his brother Ram Prasad Pandey and many other persons went to meet Sarvesh Tiwari at his plot. It is further alleged that when he reached at plot many accused persons as shown n first information report were present there including the applicant. That it is also alleged that when he asked Sarvesh Tiwari to give his money Aditya Singh @ Major and Monu Tiwari the co-accused, Raj Kumar Maurya the applicant, and Amit Raja exhorted that kill them and finish the story and in that order, Aditya Singh and Mom Tiwari caught the deceased brother of the informant and snatched his pistol and Sarvesh Tiwari, Aanad Tiwari, and Anjani Shukla and others have started firing on informant and his brother Ram Prasad and accused also chasing the person with the informant for killing them. In the meantime, his brother Ram Prasad fell down and he bring the district hospital from where he was referred to Allahabad where he died. Since he was doing the last rites of the deceased therefore the first information report could not be lodged on the same day. That it is important to mention here that the alleged incident took place on 08.05.2020 whereas the first information report was lodged on 09.05.2020 at 16.30 hours and the explanation given cannot be accepted because more than 24 hours have passed and despite the knowledge and other persons of family of the deceased first information report was not lodged nor any application was given in that regard, which shows that the first information report was delay only to create a false story to falsely implicate the applicant and other persons. That Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2020 in which he stated the same thing as in the first information report and the role was assigned to the applicant that he exhorted the coaccused to kill the deceased. The photocopy of the statement of the informant dated 09.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That Investigation Officer has also recorded the statement of some passers and other residents of Mohalla under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and they all told that firing was done by both parties and both parties have sustained injuries. None of them says that only one party has done firing. The photocopy of the statements of some independent witnesses of the case crime is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That, Investigation Officer has also recorded the statement of many police officers under Sections 161 of Cr.P.C., who stated that they went to the place of the incident and got knowledge that both parties have done firing and both sides had sustained injuries and names also disclosed by them in which name of the applicant is also mentioned. The photocopies of the statements of some police officers dated 11.05.2020 are being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of one injured Subhash Saini under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., who told that he also went with the informant to the place of incident and when they reached the place of the incident Sarvesh Tiwari asked them to sit, and talk was going on about the return of money but after some time hot talk started and then the incident was caused. The photocopy of the statement of Subhas Saini dated 14.06.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That Investigation Officer has also prepared a parcha in which it is mentioned that firing was done by both sides and both sides have sustained injuries. The photocopy of the parcha dated 10.05.2020 prepared at 10.15 AM and 15.01 hours is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the Investigating Officer has recorded the further statement of the informant on 20.07.2020 in which he assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased to co-accused Anjani Shukla and said that Anjani Shukla has fired on his brother. The photocopy of the further statement of the informant dated 20.07.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That inquest report of the deceased was prepared on 09.05.2020 at 23.00 hours without mentioning about any crime number. No one told about the accused persons despite the family of the deceased are witnesses of the inquest report. The photocopy of the inquest report of the deceased dated 08.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 08 to this affidavit. That after inquest of the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and the same was conducted on 09.05.2020 at 01.20 AM in midnight in which three injuries of a firearm were found. The photo/typed copy of the post-mortem report of the deceased dated 09.05.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 09 to this affidavit. That the Investigation Officer did not try to find out as to whose bullet hit the deceased because the firing was going on from both sides but Investigation Officer investigated only one side story. None of the firearms were sent to the ballistic expert and even the Investigation Officer should have to collect both sides firearms all of them should have to send for expert opinion because the first information report was lodged by the main accused Sarvesh Tiwari as well and both sides have received injuries of the firearm. That it is also important to mention here that Subhas Saini, Saurabh Tiwari, Laxman Prasad Pandey and the deceased were examined and they also received injuries but none of them was serious. The photo/typed copies of the injury reports of Subhas Saini, Saurav Tiwari, Laxman Prasad are being annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the entire story is false and concocted as alleged against the applicant. The real fact is that Sarvesh Tiwari and the deceased and the informant were partners and they were doing business of plotting in district Pratapgarh. That in the month of January 2020 some dispute occurred between them about partnership and commission thereafter Ram Pandey the deceased and the informant got annoyed with Sarvesh Tiwari The informant and deceased tried to take possession of the land of Marut Nagar whereas the same was taken by Sarvesh Tiwari from the actual owner of these lands. Since Ram Prasad and Laxman Prasad could not get the land they started to take over the land. Informant and deceased are muscle men and they always keep 12 to 15 men for threatening the persons. That the applicant was trying to purchase a plot in Marut Nagar therefore he paid Rs. 25000 advance to Sarvesh Tiwari and on the date of the incident he was called for measurement of the plot and to get boundaries for identifying the plots. When the applicant reached the office of Sarvesh Tiwari on 08.05.2020 the deceased and the informant were already present there along with about 15 persons and three or four vehicles. That when the applicant reached there he found that some conversation was going on between the deceased and Sarvesh Tiwari and suddenly deceased and Laxman Prasad fetch revolvers from their pocket and started firing on Sarvesh Tiwari who sit on the land and saved himself. The Guard of Sarvesh Tiwari suddenly took position and he started firing to save Sarvesh Tiwari. Thereafter all 1215 persons who came with the informant also started firing and Sarvesh Tiwari and his two three men ran away and the informant and his brother Ram Prasad chased them. Both sides have fired in which both sides have received injuries. The applicant also somehow escaped by hiding himself. That Sarvesh Tiwari has also lodged the first information report against the deceased, informant, and other persons under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 of I.P.C. bearing Case Crime No. .407 of 2020 registered at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh in which investigation is pending. An application for lodging the first information report was given on the date of the incident i.e. 08.05.2020 but the same was not lodged by police due to pressure of the informant but lodged only on 12.05.2020. The photocopy of the first information report dated 12.05.2020 lodged by Sarvesh Tiwari is being annexed as Annexure No. 11 to this affidavit. That the applicant was not present there deliberately but he went only to get the plot as per agreement. That only role assigned to the applicant is that he exhorted the other co-accused but till date, no other evidence was shown against the applicant. He was arrested on 24.08.2022 and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. That here it is relevant to mention that a firearm has been recovered from another coaccused of the case crime on 27.12.2020 and against him another first information report was lodged under relevant acts and sections. The photocopy of the recovery memo dated 27.12.2020 is being annexed as Annexure No. 12 to this affidavit. That it is also important to mention here that co-accused Monu Tiwari @ Rahul Tiwari who was assigned the role of exhortation and snatching the pistol from the deceased has been granted bail by this Hon'ble court in Bail application No. 9559 of 2020 vide order dated 17.12.2020. Here it is relevant to mention that other co-accused of the case crime namely Raj Kumar Maurya and Ravi Singh are also enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court. The applicant has the identical role of exhortation as alleged in the first information report and statement of the informant. The photocopies of the bail orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court are being annexed as Annexure No. 13 to this affidavit. That the first information report was delayed only to add some more names and get the detail of the other persons therefore the first information report was lodged on 09.05.2020. That the statements of the informant and Subhas Saini are different in the manner of the incident. As per Subhas Saini, the incident took place when the passion of conversation was increased and firing took place so the incident took place suddenly hence offence under section 120B of I.P.C. was not made out. That the applicant has no enmity with the informant but his name was mentioned under the impression that he was also there along with Sarvesh Tiwari whereas the applicant was not with Sarvesh Tiwari. That actually no evidence was collected against the applicant by police and his name was falsely implicated. That if the story is believed to be true it is the case of the sudden fight and both sides have received injury. The place of the incident if the office of Sarvesh Tiwari where the informant and his brother wanted to take possession of land forcibly and failing they opened fire on Sarvesh Tiwari in saving Sarvesh Tiwari some fire was done by the accused side also and both sides received injury. Police have not tried to find out who firearm hit the deceased. That it is also important to mention here that the plot on which the incident took place belongs to Sarvesh Tiwari and deceased and his brother came there to take over the possession of three four-wheeler vehicles and some other two-wheelers but firing was opened by both sides therefore deceased also received injuries but who fired on him is not clear. It reflects in the further statement of the informant and Subhas Saini who tell that they went with many persons. That on the basis of the statement of the informant alone and without proper Investigation Officer has included the name of the applicant. It is also important to mention here that no independent witness was produced to prove the incident. That the statements of witnesses are not reliable because all have stated different versions and manner of the incident but not no one says he saw the incident. No one assigned the role of assault to the applicant in fact the incident did not happen in the manner as given in the first information report. That even from perusing the entire case diary no evidence on record may show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 302, 120-B of I.P.C. at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged crime and a false motive which given in the case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police and informant. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant with malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing Bail Application No. 1576 of 2023 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 13.07.2023 without considering the grounds in his bail application. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the court below is being annexed as Annexure No. 14 to this affidavit. That the applicant in jail since 24.08.2022 without the commission of any offense. That the applicant has no previous criminal history. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 406 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 302, 120-B of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh during the pendency of the case.


I, Neeraj Verma aged about 21 years son Shri Harikesh Verma resident of 503, Kalideen Ka Purwa, Sagra Sundarpur, P.O. - Sagra, Police Station – Leelapur, District - Pratapgarh, Qualification – ______________, Occupation – ________________, 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 a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 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. 361 of 2023 under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh on 29.12.2023 at 00.56 hours regarding the incident dated 28.12.2023. The first information report has lodged by Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, Sub Inspector, Police Station - Pratapgarh, District – Pratapgarh. It is further relevant to mention that the aforesaid first information report is lodged against the applicant and another. The certified/ type copy of the first information report dated 29.12.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this Affidavit. That the informant stated in his first information report that on 28.12.2023 the informant along with his team on patrolling of the area. At that moment an informer of the police gave information that a white Bolero carrying the ganja, That the informant and his team arrested the applicant and another by using the manpower and recovered the 25 KG ganja from 6 packets. On questioning the applicant accepted that he had transported the said ganja from the state of Bihar. That it is relevant to mention here that the contents of the first information report are beyond the truth as well as imagination. The story of the informant does not collaborate with the facts and circumstances of the alleged case crime. That the applicant is a common man of society and has no concerns with Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance and the concerned police arrested the applicant from anther place but without any reason and falsely implicated in said case crime for showing his good work. That there is no concern with recovered Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance in any manner with the applicant, which is shown in the recovery memo as the applicant is not involved in such type act in any manner and the police concerned falsely implicated in said case crime with ulterior motive. That according to the prosecution story it clearly reveals that no one saw the occurrence and there is no any independent eye witness of the said recovery and it is a case of forge, fabricated, and false and there is no any evidence against the applicant. That the statement of the informant has been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 29.12.2023, in which he almost repeated the version of the first information report. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 29.12.2023 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this Affidavit. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant’s father was ill and on 29.12.2023 he was going to market and at that time the informant stopped him and questioned him without any reason. That the applicant opposed the informant and also asked to show a valid reason for his questioning due to which the informant was annoyed for said reason and threatened to teach a lesson to the applicant, for which the applicant regretted lifetime. That thereafter after few hours the first information report was lodged against the applicant while he was not concerned any type of the act as mentioned in the first information report. The informant for the purpose of getting the reward from the state government, falsely implicates the applicant in said case through the co-accused. That it is most relevant to mention here that the applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the informant in his first information report dated 29.12.2023. That the applicant has no concern with the recovered smack as alleged by the informant and also the averments of the informant totally baseless and the same are not reliable in manner. That the informant has no any independent witnesses of the alleged recovery because of the applicant has not committed any offence. That the informant has not complied with the provisions of Section 50 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as at the time of arrest of the applicant there was no any Gazette Officer, according to Section 42 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as such entire raid conducted is null and void. That the sample of the alleged recovered ganja was sent for chemical analysis on 12.02.2024 after around one and half months in one packet i.e. the concerned police has not sent the sample of the alleged ganja separately from all six packets. That till date the concerned police have not produced any sufficient evidence against the applicant to prove the involvement of the applicant is a case crime. That till date there is no forensic report (chemical report) of the recovered substance has been received by the informant to establish their story that the applicant is involved in the business of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. That there is no credible evidence on record that could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on the record itself show that no prima-facie offence under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is made out against the applicant. 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 investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and another on 01.03.2024 bearing Charge Sheet No. 25 of 2024 under 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 That the applicant has no criminal history ever except this false case, which has been lodged by the informant due to an ulterior motive. 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 in jail since  29.12.2023 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 Hon’ble Court. 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 number 16 of 2024 but the same has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Pratapgarh on insufficient grounds vide order dated 13.02.2024. The free certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the court below is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 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 relation to case crime No. 361 of 2023 under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the case.


I, Dinesh Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Late Vijay Pal Singh resident of 715/605, Sabji Mandi, Karnalganj, District - Allahabad,  Religion – Hindu, Education – LL.B., Occupation – Advocacy and the photograph of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the brother of the applicant duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. That this is the second bail application, first bail application No. 6834 of 2013 was rejected by Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II) “J” on 04.04.2014. That on 30.04.2013 about 06.30 Hours the informant Shri Ram Mishra lodged a first information report against 05 persons including the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under Section section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi. The photo and typed copy of the first information report dated 30.04.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. That brief fact of the alleged prosecution story is that the alleged accused as mentioned in the first information report, the applicant and other accused persons of the above case crime, armed with the iron rod, Lathi & Danda came at the door of the informant, where the father of the informant sitting in courtyard, all the accused persons caught hold and dragged him up to the tree by assaulting mercilessly. The mother and brother-in-law of the informant namely Girija Shankar with the help of 108 brought to the injured at Community Health Centre, Amethi from where he was referred to Lucknow where he is being treated and there is least possibility of his survival. That the injured was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 30.04.2013 at 12.30 PM and was expired on 19.05.2013 at 06.40 PM. The police of Gomti Nagar was informed for conducting the inquest through G.D. No. 44 at 07.20 PM. Photocopy of the letter dated 19.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. That the inquest was conducted on 20.05.2013 at 09.05 PM at Mayo Medical Centre, Police Station – Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in presence of the informant and chance eye witness Girija Shankar as per information, death occurred due to sustaining the grievous injuries during mar-peet. Photocopy of the inquest report is being filed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit. That the doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20.05.2013 at 3.30 PM The death is due to coma as result of anti-mortem head injury. The doctor has noted four injuries on the person of deceased, first is on the right side heads 3cm above the right ear, second injury is on the frond of right forearm 7.00 cm above right wrist joint, third injury is stated on the left forearm 9 cm above left wrist join, fourth injury is on right ankle joint. Photocopy of the autopsy report is being annexed herewith annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit. That it is admitted that the informant is not eye witness of the occurrence. His statement under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2013 and stated therein he was remained in private service at Delhi after hearing the news he came at the village. The statement of Girija Shankar Pandey resident of Padari, Gauriganj, District – Amethi stated therein the deceased was dragged by the applicant and others and was allegedly assaulted by Lathi, danda and iron rod. That thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of Smt. Rajpati wife of deceased who stated in her statement that the applicant and co-accused Jitndra Singh have assaulted with Iron rod and Satyam and Ram Pratap assaulted by lathi and danda. The co-accused Sheetla Prasad caught hold of the deceased in Osara and dragged him at the place of occurrence. Type copies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith collectively as Annexure No. 5 to this affidavit. That in the meantime the injured/deceased was being treated in Mayo Hospital, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and took his last breath on 19.05.2013. The case summary was prepared by Doctor Siddharth Singh who is hospital administrator. The Neurosurgeon doctor Tarun Pandey has opined that the patient was referred for the head injury but there is no evidence of head injury. C.T. brain is normal. The group of doctors six in numbers have expressed their opinion that the patient progressed well in post-operative period. The patient shifted to room on 07.05.2013 developed breathlessness (Penumonitis) on 08.05.2013 and was again shifted to I.C.U. expired on 19.05.2013. Dr. S. S. Gupta (M.D.) Chest was looking after the patient for respiratory problem. He was Tracheotomised by anti-surgeon and was seen by me on 14.05.2013. The patient was also looked after by the plastic surgeon. The report of doctor who conducted post mortem is contrary with the report of the doctor who treated the patient from 01.05.2013 to 19.05.2013. Photo copy of the of the case summary given by the doctor Siddharth Singh Hospital in Administration dated 01.05.2013 is being herewith as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. That according to the report given by the doctor Tarun Pandey (M.S., M.C.H., Neurosurgen) deceased was referred to him but no evidence of head injury was found in the C.T. Scan report. That this fact has deliberately been concealed by the investigating officer of this case with some oblique motive and for this reason he has not taken the C.T. Scan plates on the record of the investigation of the case. That investigating officer took up investigation on 23.06.2013 again recorded the statement of the informant Shri Ram Mishra. He has stated that there was dispute of land, the accused persons armed with lathi, danda, iron rod surrounded his father. This incident was being witnesed by his brother-in-law and mother inside the house from the gap of the gates. The similar statement of Shri Rajpati and Girija Shankar Pandey without slight change. The investigating officer again recorded statement just to twist the story after seeing the post mortem. The investigating officer recorded the statement of doctor Unday Pratap Singh on 23.07.2013 who has stated that he was posted at C.H.C., Amethi and on 30.04.2013 at 9.00 AM examined injured Ram Akbal who was brought by 108 mobile vehicle, a that moment Naib Tahsildar Ajeet Singh also came there and recorded the dying declaration. It is to be noted that doctor Uday Pratap Singh has not given fitness certificate and he is referring that the condition of the patient was serious, the general conditions of the patient was very poor as mentioned in the injury report, in such circumstances, it is evident that the injured was not in position to make his statement. The dying declaration was manipulated and concocted under the political influence. Photo copy of the statement of Dr. Uday Pratap Singh is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 7 to this affidavit. That the investigation officer has made recovery of two pieces of brick and one piece of blood stained wooden danda, on 02.05.2013. Photo copy of the recovery memo is being herewith as Annexure No. 8 to this affidavit. That the informant is not an eyewitness Girija Shankar Pandey is the chance witness and brother-in-law of the informant is highly unreliable and a chance witness. The statement of informant is to the effect that the incident was seen in side of the house is also belies the prosecution case. That the dying declaration is alleged to be concocted and manipulated. In the first information report weapon was lathi, danda and iron rod while in dying declaration gadansa, lathi and danda, bricks and the numbers of the accused were not specified. There was no injury report of gadansa and the same was not mentioned in first information report. In the first information report fire arm was alleged to be used was katta, while in dying declaration rifle has been attributed. In dying declaration the name of Sheetal has not been mentioned. The name of Ram Bahadur’s sons are not mentioned in first information report. The dying declaration is not in question answer form. Type copy of dying declaration is being herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit. That the alleged dying declaration was recorded by the Tasildar on 30.04.2013 at C.H.C., Amethi when the deceased was not in the position to give any statement. That the eye-witness Girija Shankar Pandey of the case, during trial in his crass examination dated 07.04.2015 stated that the applicant was not present at the incident place and also stated he had not beaten the deceased and as alleged in the first information report. Photo and type of the cross examination of the eye-witness Girija Shankar Pandey dated 07.04.2015 is being herewith as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit. That the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion as in the murder of his father Samsher Singh, deceased Ram Akbal was an accused along with others and was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. on 09.11.2000 in S.T. No. 141 of 1998 (State Versus Ram Akbal and others). The deceased filed an appeal being appeal No. 1048 of 2000 and he was on bail. The deceased Shamsher Singh was renowned advocate of District – Pratapgarh. That an absurd story has been cooked up by the prosecution that the person is having the rifle and tamancha will not use lathi, danda and iron rod. The first information report resembling with the autopsy report. The first information report is contradictory with the dying declaration. The statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not corroborating with each other. That following cases are registered against the applicant:- Case crime No. 130 of 1984 under Section 393, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 73 of 1985 under section 436 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 177 of 1988, under section 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case final report submitted by the police. Case Crime No. 183 of 1992, under sections 4/10 Forest Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 37 of 1991 under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 224 of 1996 under section 352, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 159 of 1992 under section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 15 of 1993 under section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 2 of 1989 under section 307, 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case final report submitted by the police. Case Crime No. 216 of 1993, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 170 of 1993 under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 89 of 2004 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 100 of 2007 under section 374 I.P.C. and 4/16 Bonded Labour Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 76 of 2008, under section 506 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, this case is lodged as N.C.R.. Case Crime No. 122 of 2007 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 147 of 2008 under section 3(1), U.P. Goonda Act, Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, the applicant is acquitted in this case. Case Crime No. 304 of 2008 under section 307, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case arrest stay has been granted by this Hon'ble Court, no charge sheet filed till date. Case Crime No. 122 of 2008 under section 147, 148, 323, 435, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Moreover in this case mother of the applicant lodged the cross case against the complainants. Case Crime No. 100 of 2010, under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 140 of 2008, under section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, proceedings dropped. Case Crime No. 107A of 2013 under section 148, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 718 of 2003 under section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, in this case the applicant is on bail and trial is pending. Case Crime No. 567 of 2012 under section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, the applicant have no knowledge about this case till date. Case Crime No. 192 of 2013 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 34, 302 I.P.C. and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station – Sangrampur, District – Amethi, this is present case. That the applicant is innocent. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been explained in the preceding paragraph. There is delay in lodging the first information report. There is contradiction in first information report and alleged dying declaration. The injured/deceased was assaulted by the persons with whom civil dispute was pending, even after loosing the case in the Hon'ble Court. He was forcibly having the possession. The deceased was convicted in the murder of the brother of the applicant and was on bail by the Hon'ble Court, this was suspicion and the applicant schooling students were implicated. That for proper adjudication of the case it is submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated by the police persons without any reason and the applicant has not commit any offence as alleged in the first information report. That the applicant in jail since 25/05/2013. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case.


I, Bharat Bhuwal Jaiswal aged about 32 years son of Shri Jokhu Lal Jaiswal, resident of Village – Balapur, Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Graduate, Occupation – Business, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the son 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 . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 3 other persons on 14.07.2017 by informant namely Shri Station House Officer, Police Station – Antu namely Shubh Narain with regard to sale & mixing of illegal liquor and under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act & 7 Criminal Law Amendment, 1986 at Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the first information report dated 14.07.2017 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That according the first information report the informant stated that the after getting information with regard to manufacturing of the illegal liquor by his reliable sources and he with other police personnel’s raided the alleged place, where huge amount of mixed liquor was recovered along with server brands of rapper and bottles. That after concluding the raid, the recovery memo has been prepared by the concerned police on 14.07.2017. That the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.07.2017, in which he repeated his first information report version with whole words i.e. the statement of the informant is copy of the first information report dated 14.07.2017. The typed copy of the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the several other witnesses were recorded their statement on 16.07.2017 and no anyone told the name of the applicant in connection to the said case crime. The photocopies of the statements of the witnesses are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the real fact of the case is that; the applicant is old age person, who has not in position to commit any offense as alleged against him. That one another accused namely Bheemsen alias Raju Singh, who is named in first information report, is mastermind of the said business of illegal liquor and between the applicant and Raju Singh is long enmity due to which he has told the name of the applicant to the concerned police during the raid on 14.07.2017. That with collusion of Bheemsen alias Raju Singh and concerned police personnel’s the name of the applicant has been included by the informant. That the applicant was arrested by the concerned police from his house but showing their good work, in arresting memo mentioned that the applicant has been arrested nearby his house. The typed copy of the parcha No. 4 of the case dairy dated 31.07.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1220 of 2017 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 06.09.2017. The copy of the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 31.07.2017 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant. That the applicant is about 70 year old year person, and having old age problems. The photocopy of the Aadhar Card of the applicant is being annexed herewith 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 case.


I, Ram Baksh Singh aged about 60 years son of Shri Ramsharan, Village – Kalapur, Kaithola, Police Station – Lalganj, di – Pratapgarh, Education– Illiterate, Occupation –   , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- That the deponent is the father /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 a photo affidavit slip issued by the Oudh Bar Association 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 him as such he conversant with the facts of the case. That the instant matter is not related to CBI/Prevention of Corruption Act/ Enforcement Directorate /matters relating to NRHM Scam / GPF Scam/matters of MP/MLA etc. That this is the first bail application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court.  No other bail application is pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. That the brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 2 others including his parents on 31.03.2024 by Ramesh Kumar son of Late Ram Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Raniganj Kaithola Bazar, Gram Sabha – Kaushilyapur, Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘informant’) bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2024 under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of IPC regarding the incident dated 30.03.2024. The certified/typed copy of the first information report dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this affidavit. That according to the first information report informant stated in his first information report that the informant is running a shop and on 30.03.2024 at 07.00 PM, applicant and two other accused  having Katta in their hand came to his shop and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as extortion money. When the informant denied then the accused have beaten him thereafter he paid Rs. 5,000/-. The informant further alleged that the applicant threaten him to pay extortion at any cost. That the applicant is falsely implicated by the informant and the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless and so far as the same are concerned with the applicant. That the alleged incident which was taken place on 30.03.2024 around 07.00 PM but the first information report was lodged on 31.03.2024, without giving any explanation with regard to delay caused in lodging the first information report, which is already questionable and doubtful as the informant lodged aforesaid first information after legal advice. That the medical of the alleged injured was conducted at C.H.C., Lalganj, Pratapgarh on 30.03.2024 in which the injuries shown as simple in nature. The photo/typed copy of the injury report dated 30.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That on 31.03.2024, the statement of the informant was recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which he almost repeated the version of the first information report with improved prosecution story to send the applicant behind the bar. The typed copy of the statement of the informant dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 03 to this affidavit. That the concerned Investigating Officer recorded the some stataments of the alleged eye-witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which they supported the prosecution story, while the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against the applicant. The typed copies of the statements of the alleged eyewitness are being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 04 to this affidavit. That on 31.03.2024, the applicant has been arrested from his house but for showing his good work, the Investigating Officer prepared false and fabricated recovery cum arresting memo, in which mentioned recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from the applicant. The photo/typed copy of the recovery memo dated 31.03.2024 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 05 to this affidavit. That without proper investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet No. 91 of 2023 against the applicant under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of IPC against the applicant and others on 23.04.2024. That the real fact of the case is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant due to malafide intentions to take revenge from the applicant’s family. That the informant running a shop and on 30.03.2024, the applicant went to his shop, where a dispute has been arisen between the applicant and informant thus the informant threatened the applicant to face consequences of the same. That thereafter the informant was fought with another person, who beaten him and his family thereafter whole story was cooked by the informant and his family members on narration of the concerned police against the applicant and others, which has been explained by the concerned police. That there no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him by the informant. 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. 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 under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the co-accused of the case crime namely Awadhesh Singh moved bail application before this Hon’ble High Court bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 6728 (B) of 2024, which has been allowed by this Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 24.06.2024. The photocopy of the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by this Hon’ble High Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 06 to this affidavit. That the case of the applicant is similar to the co-accused of the case crime and it is fit case for granting the bail to the applicant on the basis of the paritry of the co-accused of the case crime. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1478 of 2024 before Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh, and his bail application was rejected by the court concerned on 04.07.2024 without considering the facts of the case. The certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the court below is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 07 to this affidavit. That apart from the above criminal case, against the applicant another case was lodged bering Case Crime No. 567 of 2017 under Section 60 of Excise Act at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, in which the applicant is on bail. That the applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid mentioned false cases, That the applicant has been languishing in jail since 31.03.2024 without committing any offense. That there is no chance of the applicant absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnish the security and bond and also undertakes that he will never misuse the liberty of bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2024 under Sections 386, 384, 323, 427, 506 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice.


I, Ritesh Kumar Yadav aged about 22 years son of Shri Rati Ram Yadav Resident of Village – Asaitha, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Business, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to doing pairavi and files the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before this . No any other bail application pending before this Hon'ble Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. That brief facts of the case is that a first information report has been lodged against the applicant and 2 other persons on 01.06.2017 by informant namely Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector Field Unit, Allahabad bearing Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act at Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh on false, incorrect and baseless grounds. The photocopy of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That fact of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 is in nutshell; the informant along with other police companions were searching the criminals and illegal liquor smugglers and they reached Sagra Sundar Pal within the jurisdiction of the Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh. That meanwhile one of police informer informed them that at Khajuri turn, two Bolero and one Pickup vehicles are standing and some persons are also there nearby the aforesaid vehicles with illegal liquor. On this information the raiding party reached Khajuri turn and saw that two Bolero and one Pickup vehicles there and after seeing the police personnel’s the persons standing nearby the vehicles tried to escape but three persons including the applicant were arrested by the raiding party at about 03:15 AM on said date i.e. 01.06.2017. That it has been further alleged in the first information report that from the possession of the applicant one country made pistol 315 bore and there live cartages of 315 bore, 10 boxes of illegal liquor total 450 bottles of 200ML in all boxes, 500 empty bottles without cap of 200ML, 200 pages rappers total 9898 rappers, 9500 bottles caps and 7000 cap washers kept in two bags and also have 30,000.00 cash was recovered from him. As per first information report dated 01.06.2017, the applicant was driving the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. That from the possession of the co-accused Madan Lal Verma, the raiding party found one country made pistol 315 bore and two live cartages 315 bore, Rs. 14,000.00 cash, 6 boxes of illegal liquor total 270 bottles of 200ML labelled as Dabang Desi Sharab Masaledar, 400 empty bottles without cap of 200ML, 10700 holograms in three bundles, one packet of chemical for making colour and 6 bundles tape. That the raiding party from the 3rd accused, who was driving the Pickup vehicle No. UP 44 T 9075 recovered the 8300 empty bottles without cap, one plastic tank of 500 litres which was filled about 400 litres of illegal liquor which was dripping from the tap of the tank and two empty gallons of the 50 litres. That it is further stated that above recovery so far concerned with the applicant was false, incorrect and baseless and on basis the first information report was lodged against the applicant and others, in the Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh. That the versions of the first information report dated 01.06.2017 and same is depends upon the concocted story as such nothing has been recovered from the applicant as alleged against him. Here it relevant to mention here that the applicant was neither driver of the alleged vehicle nor knowing the driving of the four vehicle. That the real story of the case is that so far concerned to the applicant is that; the applicant has no concerned with the said alleged incident. On 31.05.2017, at marital house of sister of the applicant was a function (Bhandara) at Jalesharganj, Pratapgarh, in which he was present. At that place cousin brother of the applicant namely Shiv Nath Yadav, was also there, who is the owner of the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. That after taking dinner (Bhandara) the Shiv Nath Yadav was also come to house of the applicant for night stay. The applicant was unaware about raid, which was conducting by the raiding party at alleged place. At 3.00AM of 01.06.2017 the police of concerned Police Station was come to house of the applicant and without saying any word, arrested him but the informant showing in his first information report that the applicant was arrested at alleged incident place when he was sit on driving seat of the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. The photo/typed copy of the arresting memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That after concluding the raid, the recovery memo has been prepared by the concerned police on 01.06.2017. That so far concerned to the recovery of the Rs. 30,000.00 from the applicant, it is relevant to mention here that the said money was also taken by the concerned police from the house of the applicant, when he was arrested from his house. The said money was withdrawn by his daughter namely Ranjna Yadav on 18.05.2017 on request of the applicant as same was to be given to his sister in her function but on 30.05.2017, his sister denied for taking the said money as there was no need. The photocopy of the bank statement of the daughter of the applicant is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the manner in which the arrest and the recovery has been shown from the applicant is highly improbable against the human nature as he was arrested from his house, which is against the fact and circumstances of the case. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case crime by the concerned Police Station police as the several cases have been lodged against the applicant. That the cases lodged against the applicant, details & status of the same are as under : Case Crime No. 218 of 2000 under Sections 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, in which the applicant has been acquitted by the A.D.J, Pratapgarh on 07.07.2006. Case Crime No. 219 of 2000 under Sections 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 42 of 2003 under Sections 41, 411 I.P.C., which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 40 of 2003 under Sections 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 46 of 2003 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 58 of 2003 under Sections 392 I.P.C.. This case was ended at stage of investigation. Case Crime No. 234 of 2007 under Sections 2/3 Gunda Act. Case Crime No. 502 of 2009 under Sections 272 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 89 of 2010 under Sections 110G Cr.P.C.. Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act, which is still pending before the court concerned. Case Crime No. 239 of 2017 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, which is still pending before the court concerned and he is on bail. That since the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated and has no any involvement in the said case as alleged in first information report, the applicant has not committed any offence. That the applicant moved bail application bearing No. 1358 of 2017 before Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.09.2017. The copy of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by court concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the co-accused of the case crime 238 of 2017, Mandan Lal Verma moved a bail application No. 5937 of 2017 before this Hon'ble Court and he has been released on bail vide order dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Another accused namely Akbar Ali moved bail application No. 7062 of 2017 and he has been also released on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.08.2017. That the applicant in jail since 01.06.2017 without committing any offense as alleged against the applicant with regard to case crime No. 238 of 2017. 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.