High Court

2. Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.50 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30951 of 2023 and the following order was passed :- "1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/S 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

3. The bail application of the co-accused persons Pintu and Kalu @ Abhimanyu was decided by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J. on 2.9.2022 and 15.9.2022 respectively, who has since retired and subsequent to it, the bail to the co- accused Ravi was granted by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2023 on the ground of parity. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. On 10.2.2022, at 8.00 pm, the applicant and three other co- accused persons are stated to have barged into the house and caught hold of the son of the informant and put him down on the road. The co-accused persons Ravi, Pintu and Kalu @ Abhimanyu are stated to have caught hold of the son of the informant Arun and had asked the applicant to fire at him, whereby the applicant is stated to have caused gunshot injury to the head of the son of the informant and thereafter, ran away from the place of occurrence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5 Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. It is stated that FIR is delayed by four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused, as it was registered in the night of 11.2.2022 at 00.49 hours.

7. The co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. In all, three witnesses of fact have been examined and the cross-examination of P.W. 3 is still pending.

8. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in the near future, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. The instant case is the fall out of the FIR No. 435 of 2019 instituted by the father of the applicant against the informant and other family members. The site plan indicates that the place of occurrence is in front of the house of the applicant, as such, he has been implicated.

9. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.2.2023, and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person, who has caused gunshot injury to the deceased person leading to his death. The intention was to put him to death and nothing else, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

11. It is also stated that the applicant has a criminal history of two cases i.e Case Crime Nos. 74 of 2022 and 460 of 2016 and the same has not been explained, as no order thereof has been annexed. ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

12. The applicant is on bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2016 and he is yet to apply for bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the said criminal history stands explained. CONCLUSION:

13. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the main accused person, who had caused gunshot injuries to the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

14. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

15. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

16. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 07.02.2023 and more than two years have passed since his incarceration.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses have been examined to date. There are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main assailant as it was he who shot the deceased person on his head.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

11. 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 :- 28.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.50 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30951 of 2023 and the following order was passed :- "1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.50 of 2022, U/S 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

3. The bail application of the co-accused persons Pintu and Kalu @ Abhimanyu was decided by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J. on 2.9.2022 and 15.9.2022 respectively, who has since retired and subsequent to it, the bail to the co- accused Ravi was granted by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2023 on the ground of parity. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. On 10.2.2022, at 8.00 pm, the applicant and three other co- accused persons are stated to have barged into the house and caught hold of the son of the informant and put him down on the road. The co-accused persons Ravi, Pintu and Kalu @ Abhimanyu are stated to have caught hold of the son of the informant Arun and had asked the applicant to fire at him, whereby the applicant is stated to have caused gunshot injury to the head of the son of the informant and thereafter, ran away from the place of occurrence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5 Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. It is stated that FIR is delayed by four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused, as it was registered in the night of 11.2.2022 at 00.49 hours.

7. The co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. In all, three witnesses of fact have been examined and the cross-examination of P.W. 3 is still pending.

8. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in the near future, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. The instant case is the fall out of the FIR No. 435 of 2019 instituted by the father of the applicant against the informant and other family members. The site plan indicates that the place of occurrence is in front of the house of the applicant, as such, he has been implicated.

9. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.2.2023, and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person, who has caused gunshot injury to the deceased person leading to his death. The intention was to put him to death and nothing else, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

11. It is also stated that the applicant has a criminal history of two cases i.e Case Crime Nos. 74 of 2022 and 460 of 2016 and the same has not been explained, as no order thereof has been annexed. ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

12. The applicant is on bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2016 and he is yet to apply for bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 of the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the said criminal history stands explained. CONCLUSION:

13. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the main accused person, who had caused gunshot injuries to the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

14. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

15. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

16. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 07.02.2023 and more than two years have passed since his incarceration.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses have been examined to date. There are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main assailant as it was he who shot the deceased person on his head.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

11. 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 :- 28.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)