High Court

1. Sri Pulak Ganguli, Advocate submits that he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court but his name could not be shown in the cause list. However, he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Heard Sri Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pulak Ganguli, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Gahmar, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.06.2024 at 20:30 hours against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, on 23.06.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening brother of the informant was going alongwith Prem Yadav for the purpose to evacuate himself and informant and his cousin brother Harndra Yadav were also coming behind them but on the way, applicant and others intercepted him and on the exhortation of co-accused Shivshankar, co-accused Ajay Chaudhary and Gorakh Chaudhary caught hold him and thereafter applicant caused firearm injury on his temple region.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, from the FIR, it reflects, informant, Prem Yadav and Harendra Yadav were the eye-witnesses but post-mortem report clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and incident has been occurred in some other manner.

6. He further submits that however, as per the FIR, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but from his post-mortem report, it reflects, he sustained six lacerated wounds and one firearm injury but even firearm injury is not on his temple region rather it was on his chest.

7. He further submits that however, when statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation then they only stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased and they did not state that he caused firearm injury on his temple region but they again failed to explain six lacerated wounds sustained by the deceased.

8. He further submits that as per the eye-witnesses, two co-accused caught hold the deceased and thereafter applicant caused firearm injury to him and this fact again falsifies the prosecution version as there was absolutely no occasion for them to caught hold the deceased if applicant was using the firearm.

9. He further submits that in case of injury caused by firearm, there was absolutely no occasion for others to caught hold the deceased as by doing so they themselves could sustain injuries.

10. He further submits that all these facts clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to the enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others.

11. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

12. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last eight months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is the principal accused, who caused firearm injury to the deceased and all the witnesses categorically disclosed this fact in their statements recorded during investigation but they could not dispute the fact that all the witnesses simply stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased but post-mortem report suggests that apart from one firearm injury, deceased also sustained as many as six lacerated wounds and how he sustained these lacerated wounds could not be reflected from the statements of the eye-witnesses.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that as per the FIR, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but post-mortem report suggests that he sustained firearm injury on his chest.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. However, as per prosecution, informant and two others were the eye-witnesses but their statements recorded during investigation could not get corroboration from the post-mortem report rather post-mortem report suggests, incident occurred in some other manner as apart from one firearm injury, deceased also sustained as many as six lacerated wounds, which have not been explained by the prosecution.

17. Further, from the FIR, it reflects, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but deceased did not sustain any firearm injury on his temple region and he sustained firearm injury only on his chest however it appears, when the statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation including the statement of the informant then they slightly changed the version of the FIR and stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased without disclosing the seat of injury. This fact suggests that subsequently informant and witnesses tried to patch up the facts initially disclosed in the FIR. Considering all these facts, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last eight months.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Sanjay Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Zafar

1. Sri Pulak Ganguli, Advocate submits that he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court but his name could not be shown in the cause list. However, he is ready to argue the matter.

2. Heard Sri Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pulak Ganguli, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Gahmar, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.06.2024 at 20:30 hours against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, on 23.06.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening brother of the informant was going alongwith Prem Yadav for the purpose to evacuate himself and informant and his cousin brother Harndra Yadav were also coming behind them but on the way, applicant and others intercepted him and on the exhortation of co-accused Shivshankar, co-accused Ajay Chaudhary and Gorakh Chaudhary caught hold him and thereafter applicant caused firearm injury on his temple region.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, from the FIR, it reflects, informant, Prem Yadav and Harendra Yadav were the eye-witnesses but post-mortem report clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and incident has been occurred in some other manner.

6. He further submits that however, as per the FIR, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but from his post-mortem report, it reflects, he sustained six lacerated wounds and one firearm injury but even firearm injury is not on his temple region rather it was on his chest.

7. He further submits that however, when statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation then they only stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased and they did not state that he caused firearm injury on his temple region but they again failed to explain six lacerated wounds sustained by the deceased.

8. He further submits that as per the eye-witnesses, two co-accused caught hold the deceased and thereafter applicant caused firearm injury to him and this fact again falsifies the prosecution version as there was absolutely no occasion for them to caught hold the deceased if applicant was using the firearm.

9. He further submits that in case of injury caused by firearm, there was absolutely no occasion for others to caught hold the deceased as by doing so they themselves could sustain injuries.

10. He further submits that all these facts clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to the enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others.

11. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

12. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last eight months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is the principal accused, who caused firearm injury to the deceased and all the witnesses categorically disclosed this fact in their statements recorded during investigation but they could not dispute the fact that all the witnesses simply stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased but post-mortem report suggests that apart from one firearm injury, deceased also sustained as many as six lacerated wounds and how he sustained these lacerated wounds could not be reflected from the statements of the eye-witnesses.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that as per the FIR, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but post-mortem report suggests that he sustained firearm injury on his chest.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. However, as per prosecution, informant and two others were the eye-witnesses but their statements recorded during investigation could not get corroboration from the post-mortem report rather post-mortem report suggests, incident occurred in some other manner as apart from one firearm injury, deceased also sustained as many as six lacerated wounds, which have not been explained by the prosecution.

17. Further, from the FIR, it reflects, applicant caused firearm injury on the temple region of the deceased but deceased did not sustain any firearm injury on his temple region and he sustained firearm injury only on his chest however it appears, when the statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation including the statement of the informant then they slightly changed the version of the FIR and stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased without disclosing the seat of injury. This fact suggests that subsequently informant and witnesses tried to patch up the facts initially disclosed in the FIR. Considering all these facts, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024 i.e. for last eight months.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Sanjay Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Zafar