Prompt: Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: - CASE: Crime No. 19 of 2014 - DISTRICT: Not available - BAIL APPLICATION: Not available --- Output: IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B) of 2015 Ramraj alias Tedhu aged about 52 year son of Ganga Prasad resident of Village – Gopalpur (Updhayaypur), Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh .....Applicant (In Jail from 06.02.2014) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh .....Opposite Party Case Crime No. 19 of 2014 Under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. Police Station – Antu District – Pratapgarh Bail application rejected by the, Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 15.07.2014 APPLICATION FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 Cr. P.C. The applicant most respectfully submits as under:- For the facts and reasons mentioned in accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the bail to the applicant in the interest of Justice. Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) Advocate Dated : .2015 Counsel for the applicant Case Crime No. 19 of 2014 Under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. Police Station – Antu District – Pratapgarh Bail application rejected by the, Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 15.07.2014 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2014 Ramraj alias Tedhu ...Applicant (In Jail from 06.02.2014) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party AFFIDAVIT (In support of bail application) I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the relative of the 1. applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to file the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case and deposed as under. The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his photograph is affixed on the affidavit. That this is the first bail application before 2. this Hon'ble Court. 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 3. information report has been lodged against the applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter referred to as deceased) have murdered by applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014. The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged 4. incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. and the first information report was lodged on same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the alleged incident, while the distance between the incident place and police station is only 9 Kilometers and the informant was having motorcycle. That according to the first information report 5. the informant was present everywhere i.e. from Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was picked and he was also called his cousin brothers namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three are followed the deceased till incident place but not raised alarm at any point in any manner. That as a matter of record, the first information 6. report was not lodged after two hours of the alleged incident, it has been lodged after much delay of the alleged incident, which is itself clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the death of deceased persons was given at police station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M. and on 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and on the inquest report no case number is mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That from perusal of the first information 7. report, it is clear that it had been registered under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to the information of the death of deceased persons. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. That it is admitted case of the prosecution that 8. neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged eye witnesses) have received any type of injury in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates doubt on the presence of complainant and his cousins at the place of alleged incident. That the post mortem reports of the deceased 9. persons do not corroborate the prosecution case as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees three injuries have been reported and in the post mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two injuries have been reported, while as per prosecution all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased persons and further no fire arm injury has been found on the body of deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of 10. deceased persons reveals that deceased persons died due to head injury and the prosecution is silent on this point that who is author of the those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger 11. Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye witness of the alleged incident, did not support the prosecution story in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That neither the applicant has motive nor any 12. motive has been assigned to him to commit the crime in question and the motive to commit the crime in question has been assigned to the co- accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has no concerned in any manner. That the role of the causing injury by gahdala 13. has been assigned to the applicant and the false recovery of gahdala has been also shown on his pointing out, while the reality is that nothing has been recovered by the pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery of the gahdala is false & fabricated and before the alleged incident i.e. 06.01.2014 and planted on, which is itself evident from this very fact that the alleged recovery has been shown from an open place, which is easy approach of every person and further there is no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 to this application. That after perusal of the post mortem report, 14. it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries on any deceased persons. That the alleged incident is said to have been 15. taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and no source of light has been disclosed. That earlier the first information report was 16. registered only against 9 persons but later on, during the course of investigation, two persons have also been made accused in the present case. That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons 17. were hardened criminal and they have been murdered due to their criminal activities and later on, after having the knowledge of the death of the his brothers, the informant managed lodging a false first information report against applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of death of his brothers. That there is no credible evidence on record 18. which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crime in question and the evidence available on record itself show that no prima- facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. That the applicant has no motive to commit the 19. alleged crime and false motive which given in case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned police. That since the applicant has not committed any 20. offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That no any involvement in the said case as 21. alleged in first information report, the applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. That the applicant moved bail application bearing 22. No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this application. That the applicant filed certified copy of the 23. bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because free copy of the bail rejection order is being never received. The bail application moved before the court below along with five persons and same is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. 24. That the applicant has no criminal history except 25. the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant 26. absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the 27. 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 28. and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of case. Lucknow Date : 2015 Deponent VERIFICATION I, the deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge. No part of its is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me “GOD”. Lucknow Dated: 2015 Deponent I, identify the deponent on the basis of the record produced by the deponent, who has signed before me. Advocate Solemnly affirmed before me on at A.M./P.M. by the deponent, who has been identified by Sri Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow, Bench, Lucknow. Enrollment No. 8078 of 2011, resident Nigohan, Lucknow. Mobile No. 8004776600 I, have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and explained by me. OATH COMMISSIONER IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 Ramraj alias Tedhu ...Applicant (In Jail from 06.02.2014) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party INDEX Sr.No Particulars Page No. Application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. 1. Affidavit in support of 2. application Annexure No. 1 3. The photocopy of the first information report dated 25.01.2014 Annexure No. 2 4. Photo/type copies of the inquest reports of the deceased persons Annexure No. 3 5. Photo/type copies of the post mortem report dated 26.01.2014 Annexure No. 4 6. Typed copy of the statement of the informant Annexure No. 5 7. Photocopies of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C Annexure No. 6 8. Photo/type copy of the forged recovery memo Annexure No. 7 9. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 Memo 10. Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) Advocate Dated : .2015 Counsel for the applicant