High Court

4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to his personal grudge. The investigating officer, without investigating the case properly, arrested the applicant. No identification parade was held to identify the actual culprits. The complainant was having enmity with one Shweta Sharma. Since the applicant had familiar relation with the husband of Shweta Sharma, therefore, he has been implicated. It is next submitted that with regard to an incident dated 12.12.2024 which took place at about 20:00 o’clock, an F.I.R. was lodged after on 13.12.2024 at 18:57 o’clock. The vehicle in question was not recovered from exclusive possession of the applicant but it was recovered from the joint possession of culprits. False recovery of country made pistol has also been shown from the possession of the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in fact, on 20.12.2024, applicant was returning home at about 9:30 pm but on the way, he was stopped by police personnel and they demanded illegal money and on refusing to satisfy their palm, they have implicated the applicant in a false case. There is no independent witness of recovery. Co-accused Shadab and Khush Chaudhari have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.03.2025 and 13.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9234 of 2025 and 16143 of 2025 respectively, hence, the applicant who is 3 languishing in jail since 20.12.2024 may also be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that during investigation, applicant along with Khush Chaudhari and Shadab were apprehended on 20.12.2024 and from their possession, a Honda WRV Car being registration no. UP 81 DA 5499 of the complainant and his samsung mobile were recovered. On the pointing out of the applicant, one country made pistol of 12 bore and cartridges were also recovered. So far as the submission on behalf of the applicant that there is no public witness of recovery is concerned, it is argued that in the recovery memo itself, it is mentioned that the police personnel has made efforts to call the public witnesses but due to night, they could not get any witness. The offence is heinous in nature. There are corroborative material about the involvement of the applicant in the said case. In addition to aforesaid submission, it is pointed out that apart from this case applicant has a criminal history of following 19 other criminal cases:- Page Nos. Not Filed Sr.No Case Crime Number Under Sections/P.S./District Status

8. 975 / 2016 411, 414 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh 337 / 2016 394, 411 I.P.C., Gandhi Park, Aligarh Bail Granted 76-77 973 / 2016 399, 402 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted 71-72 Aligarh 974 / 2016 25 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh 697 / 2016 399, 402 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed Not Filed 349 / 2017 2/3 Gangster Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 70 Aligarh 297 / 2017 307, 393 I.P.C., Gandhi Park, Aligarh Bail Granted 73-75 746 / 2018 414 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Aligarh Bail Granted 64-65 4

9. 918 / 2018 2/3 Gangster Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 66-67 Aligarh

10. 613 / 2018 25 Arms Act, Civil Line, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

11. 581 / 2018 392, 411 I.P.C., Civil Line, Bail Granted 68-69 Aligarh

12. 318 / 2019 60 Excise Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

13. 114 / 2019 393, 307 I.P.C., Civil Line, Bail Granted 59-60 Aligarh

14. 314 / 2019 21/22 NDPS Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 56-58 Aligarh

15. 317 / 2019 3/25 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

16. 531 / 2020 120-B, 307, 323, 504 Bail Granted 61-63 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Aligarh

17. 543 / 2020 3/25/27 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh

18. 642 / 2020 380, 411 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh

19. 2/3 Gangster Act, Barla, Aligarh – Not Filed Not Filed – Lastly it is submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of his absconding and misuse of bail. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant has a long criminal history of 20 cases (including the present case), as noted above. The vehicle and mobile of the complainant have also been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused. So far as bail order of co- accused Shadab is concerned, I find that one of the consideration for granting him bail was that he has no criminal history. So far as the bail order of co-accused Khush Chaudhari is concerned, I find that false statement was made before the co-ordinate Bench at the time of argument that nothing has been recovered from his possession whereas it is an admitted 5 fact that the vehicle and mobile phone of the complainant were recovered from the joint possession of all the aforesaid three accused persons. Nothing is mentioned about his criminal history. It appears that the said bail order has been obtained on the ground of bail order of co-accused Shadab whereas date of bail order of Shadab has also been wrongly mentioned in the bail order dated 13.5.2025 of co-accused Khush Chaudhari. Considering the long criminal history of the applicant, his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Shadab and Khush Chaudhari. I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence, possibility of misuse of bail cannot be ruled out. So far as the injury of the complainant is concerned, he has received following injuries:- (i) Abrasion of size 2cmx1cm over the left side of head, 7cm above left eyebrow. (ii) Contusion of size 4cmx2cm over the right ear. (iii) Abrasion of size 2.5cmx1cm over the left side of neck, 3.5 cm left clavicle bone. (iv) Abrasion of size 5cmx1cm over right side of neck, 7cm below right ear. (v) Abrasion of size 2cmx1.5cm over the dorsal aspect of right hand, 6cm below right wrist joint. (vi) Abrasion of size 6cmx2cm over the dorsal aspect of left hand, 1.5cm below left wrist joint. (vii) Abrasion of size 3cmx2cm over the anterior aspect of right leg 3cm below right knee joint. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf 6 of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Saurabh

4-It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to his personal grudge. The investigating officer, without investigating the case properly, arrested the applicant. No identification parade was held to identify the actual culprits. The complainant was having enmity with one Shweta Sharma. Since the applicant had familiar relation with the husband of Shweta Sharma, therefore, he has been implicated. It is next submitted that with regard to an incident dated 12.12.2024 which took place at about 20:00 o’clock, an F.I.R. was lodged after on 13.12.2024 at 18:57 o’clock. The vehicle in question was not recovered from exclusive possession of the applicant but it was recovered from the joint possession of culprits. False recovery of country made pistol has also been shown from the possession of the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in fact, on 20.12.2024, applicant was returning home at about 9:30 pm but on the way, he was stopped by police personnel and they demanded illegal money and on refusing to satisfy their palm, they have implicated the applicant in a false case. There is no independent witness of recovery. Co-accused Shadab and Khush Chaudhari have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.03.2025 and 13.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9234 of 2025 and 16143 of 2025 respectively, hence, the applicant who is 3 languishing in jail since 20.12.2024 may also be enlarged on bail. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that during investigation, applicant along with Khush Chaudhari and Shadab were apprehended on 20.12.2024 and from their possession, a Honda WRV Car being registration no. UP 81 DA 5499 of the complainant and his samsung mobile were recovered. On the pointing out of the applicant, one country made pistol of 12 bore and cartridges were also recovered. So far as the submission on behalf of the applicant that there is no public witness of recovery is concerned, it is argued that in the recovery memo itself, it is mentioned that the police personnel has made efforts to call the public witnesses but due to night, they could not get any witness. The offence is heinous in nature. There are corroborative material about the involvement of the applicant in the said case. In addition to aforesaid submission, it is pointed out that apart from this case applicant has a criminal history of following 19 other criminal cases:- Page Nos. Not Filed Sr.No Case Crime Number Under Sections/P.S./District Status

8. 975 / 2016 411, 414 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh 337 / 2016 394, 411 I.P.C., Gandhi Park, Aligarh Bail Granted 76-77 973 / 2016 399, 402 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted 71-72 Aligarh 974 / 2016 25 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh 697 / 2016 399, 402 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed Not Filed 349 / 2017 2/3 Gangster Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 70 Aligarh 297 / 2017 307, 393 I.P.C., Gandhi Park, Aligarh Bail Granted 73-75 746 / 2018 414 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Aligarh Bail Granted 64-65 4

9. 918 / 2018 2/3 Gangster Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 66-67 Aligarh

10. 613 / 2018 25 Arms Act, Civil Line, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

11. 581 / 2018 392, 411 I.P.C., Civil Line, Bail Granted 68-69 Aligarh

12. 318 / 2019 60 Excise Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

13. 114 / 2019 393, 307 I.P.C., Civil Line, Bail Granted 59-60 Aligarh

14. 314 / 2019 21/22 NDPS Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted 56-58 Aligarh

15. 317 / 2019 3/25 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh Not Filed

16. 531 / 2020 120-B, 307, 323, 504 Bail Granted 61-63 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Aligarh

17. 543 / 2020 3/25/27 Arms Act, Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh

18. 642 / 2020 380, 411 I.P.C., Kwarsi, Bail Granted Aligarh

19. 2/3 Gangster Act, Barla, Aligarh – Not Filed Not Filed – Lastly it is submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of his absconding and misuse of bail. 6-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that applicant has a long criminal history of 20 cases (including the present case), as noted above. The vehicle and mobile of the complainant have also been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused. So far as bail order of co- accused Shadab is concerned, I find that one of the consideration for granting him bail was that he has no criminal history. So far as the bail order of co-accused Khush Chaudhari is concerned, I find that false statement was made before the co-ordinate Bench at the time of argument that nothing has been recovered from his possession whereas it is an admitted 5 fact that the vehicle and mobile phone of the complainant were recovered from the joint possession of all the aforesaid three accused persons. Nothing is mentioned about his criminal history. It appears that the said bail order has been obtained on the ground of bail order of co-accused Shadab whereas date of bail order of Shadab has also been wrongly mentioned in the bail order dated 13.5.2025 of co-accused Khush Chaudhari. Considering the long criminal history of the applicant, his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Shadab and Khush Chaudhari. I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence, possibility of misuse of bail cannot be ruled out. So far as the injury of the complainant is concerned, he has received following injuries:- (i) Abrasion of size 2cmx1cm over the left side of head, 7cm above left eyebrow. (ii) Contusion of size 4cmx2cm over the right ear. (iii) Abrasion of size 2.5cmx1cm over the left side of neck, 3.5 cm left clavicle bone. (iv) Abrasion of size 5cmx1cm over right side of neck, 7cm below right ear. (v) Abrasion of size 2cmx1.5cm over the dorsal aspect of right hand, 6cm below right wrist joint. (vi) Abrasion of size 6cmx2cm over the dorsal aspect of left hand, 1.5cm below left wrist joint. (vii) Abrasion of size 3cmx2cm over the anterior aspect of right leg 3cm below right knee joint. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf 6 of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Saurabh