Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

1. Heard over bail application, moved by the accused-applicantRohit Singh, in Case Crime No. 271 of 2021, under Sections147, 148, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Antu, District-Pratapgarh.

2. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for accused-applicant, very nicely argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; he is languishing in jail since 09.07.2021; to the best of his knowledge, the applicant was of no criminal antecedents, though, two cases were shown as criminal antecedents, in counter affidavit, but they are of trivial nature, wherein no notice was given to applicant and he was not of knowledge of those cases; occurrence was of 19 p.m. of 22.06.20221 and the First Information Report was got lodged on 04.07.2021, by Aneeta Verma, against Rohit Singh, Raju Singh, Harshit Singh,Ramu Pandey, Santosh Kumar and Mohd. Talib; this delayed report was got lodged with no cogent explanation and out of those, six accused persons, Harshit Singh, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9588 of 2021, Prince Singh @ Sudhanshu Singh, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9985 of 2021, Santosh Kumar Dubey, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14525 of 2021, and Sujeet Pratap Singh @ Baba, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3730 of 2022, have been enlarged on bail, by coordinate Benches of this Court; the injury found, over person of the deceased, in autopsy examination report, was single injury over his abdomen, said to be given by iron rod, by applicant; but, the death is not owing to above injury, rather, it was owning to septicemia, that is spread of infection, which could not be managed in the treatment of the deceased and it was not injury over head or any vital part; the basic ingredients of culpable homicide, punishable under Section 304 I.P.C., making it grievous, is intention to kill and it was not there; even intention to cause body injury, likely to cause death, is also not there, hence, the offence punishable up to life imprisonment was not made out, at all; maximum extent the offfence, made out from the entire admission of the prosecution case comes up to imprisonment of ten years and fine; initially, offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. was got lodged, along with other sections, and in that case also there was neither any intention to cause death, nor intention to cause injuries which in all probability resulting into death and the accusation was of knowledge, hence, it was sudden quarrel, in between, resulting this occurrence, wherein, single blow, over abdomen, was there and there had been a recovery of iron rod, said to be upon pointing of applicant; but, no assault on vital part is there; there was an incident, wherein, applicant was given a fire arm shot, for which, a report for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. was got registered and the report is with record that applicant is having a pellet, in his body, and in MRI scan, there is mention of presence of metallic iron body inside the vertebra, as a result of which applicant was not in a position to move freely or to have his activities as usual one, for which a report from concerned District Jail was obtained and it is very well there, presence of metallic iron body is there; it is a false implication and in all suspicion of applicant, this subsequent occurrence and present implication of applicant, is connected with above previous incident; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; hence bail has been prayed for.

3. Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application with this contention that report was got lodged with specific mention that assault was made with intention to kill, and it is very well there in First Information Report itself; when the persons, of nearby tried to intervene and intercept, they too, were badly assaulted and one is having injury over his occipital, two persons, were medically examined and they were having injuries, they are eye witnesses; they have narrated the sequence of occurrence and deceased was having a vide dimension injury over his abdomen, resulting perforation and rupture of his intestine; this vide dimension injury was treated by way of operation putting 18 stitches over it and this was a grievous hurt for which deceased was referred to specialized treatment center at medical college, Allahabad; after all these and being settled the wife of deceased got this case lodged, hence, the delay in lodging the First Information Report is very well explained and applicant has been specifically assigned the role of giving iron rod blow, over abdomen, with intention to kill, and had ruptured the intestine, as above; all bail applications, wherein, bail have been granted, were of this specific argument, written in those all bail orders, that it was Rohit Singh, who had given the injury over abdomen, resulting injury, subsequently, death of deceased and on the basis of these arguments, the bail to co-accused, have been granted; for applicant, there is specific allegation of giving assault, with intention to kill, over abdomen, by iron rod, coupled with recovery of iron rod, after the confession of guilt and making of disclosure of this fact, under Section 27 of Evidence Act; there are previous criminal antecedents; there is every likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice and tempering with evidence in case applicant is released on bail.

4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that applicant is named in First Information Report and have been given specific role of giving assault over abdomen with intention to kill, by iron rod, and there is injury over abdomen, resulting rupture of intestine and Surgeon had put 18 stitches for this operation and owing to this injury, death was there; though, it was a case of septicemia, because of above injury; the recovery of iron rod is from the applicant; the injured witnesses Sunil Verma and Sanjay Verma, who also have injuries over their occipital and were having stitches over it, have said sequence of occurrence, wherein, assault with intention to kill was said to be made and the iron rod blow, over abdomen, was assigned to the applicant.

5. Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case, heinousness of offence of culpable homicide, likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail as well as likelihood of fleeing from course of justice, but without commenting on merit of the case, there exists no ground for bail.

6. Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.