High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, 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. 516 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) (a) of B.N.S.S., 2023, Police Station- Shamli, District- Shamli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, applicant, who was son of the deceased, has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of the co-accused Rahul Sharma.

5. He further submitted however, except the statement of the co- accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police as per prosecution applicant also had mobile conversation with co-accused Jayveer, who was the main shooter for at least 214 times but from the record, it reflects, the alleged sim card, which was used by Jayveer to talk was issued in the name of one Kuldeep and when statement of Kuldeep was recorded then he stated that co-accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and therefore, except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police, there is no cogent evidence that applicant was using the sim card of Kuldeep through which mobile conversation was made by him from the co-accused Jayveer.

6. He further submitted that even co-accused Jayveer has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed as page 27 of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application.

7. He further submitted there is also allegation that co-accused Jayveer committed the murder of the deceased by using licensed pistol of the applicant but when the pistol of the applicant was sent for examination then, it could not be matched with the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased and this fact is evident from the FSL report, which has been annexed at page 14 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except suspicion, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record.

9. He further submitted, in the present matter, during investigation, along with the applicant number of other accused persons were also made accused and they have already been released on bail.

10. He further submitted applicant is however, having criminal history of one another case but in that case, applicant is on bail and that case relates to provisions of Immoral Trafficking Act.

11. He further submitted in the present matter applicant is in jail since 08.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the principal accused, who was having motive to commit murder of his father and he hired the co-accused Jayveer and co-accused Jayveer committed the murder of the deceased and applicant also had 214 mobile conversations with the co-accused Jayveer and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent but they could not dispute the fact that the sim card, which was allegedly used by the applicant to talk with co-accused Jayveer was in the name of one Kuldeep and as per the witness Kuldeep, co-accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and except the statement of the accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police, there is no evidence that applicant was using the sim card, which was issued in the name of Kuldeep.

13. They however further submitted that in the alleged crime, co- accused Jayveer used the licensed pistol of the applicant but they again could not dispute the fact that from the FSL report it reflects, the pistol of the applicant could not be connected with the present crime.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Jayveer and Ashu @ Saurabh, who were allegedly the main shooter have already been released on bail by this Court.

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

16. It is the case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation, applicant who was son of the deceased has been made accused through the statement of the co-accused Rahul Sharma. However, as per prosecution, applicant used to talk one of the shooter Jayveer and he had 214 times mobile conversations with him but it reflects co-accused Jayveer had mobile conversation from the sim, which was issued in the name of Kuldeep and from the statement of the Kuldeep it reflects co- accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and it also reflects except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police there is no other cogent and admissible evidence on record which can shows that applicant was the person, who was using the sim of Kuldeep.

17. Further, however as per the prosecution, shooter Jayveer used the licensed pistol of the applicant in the instant crime but from the FSL report, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application it reflects, alleged pistol of the applicant could not be matched with the bullet, which was found from the body of the deceased.

18. Further along with the applicant, number of other accused persons were also made accused but they have already been released on bail including the alleged shooter Jaiveer and Ashu @ Saurabh.

19. Further, however apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case applicant is on bail and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

20. Further, law is settled unless proven guilty and accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be withheld for punitive purpose.

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

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

23. Let the applicant- Sonu @ Sobhit 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 27.5.2025 Priya PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, 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. 516 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) (a) of B.N.S.S., 2023, Police Station- Shamli, District- Shamli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, applicant, who was son of the deceased, has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of the co-accused Rahul Sharma.

5. He further submitted however, except the statement of the co- accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police as per prosecution applicant also had mobile conversation with co-accused Jayveer, who was the main shooter for at least 214 times but from the record, it reflects, the alleged sim card, which was used by Jayveer to talk was issued in the name of one Kuldeep and when statement of Kuldeep was recorded then he stated that co-accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and therefore, except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police, there is no cogent evidence that applicant was using the sim card of Kuldeep through which mobile conversation was made by him from the co-accused Jayveer.

6. He further submitted that even co-accused Jayveer has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed as page 27 of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application.

7. He further submitted there is also allegation that co-accused Jayveer committed the murder of the deceased by using licensed pistol of the applicant but when the pistol of the applicant was sent for examination then, it could not be matched with the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased and this fact is evident from the FSL report, which has been annexed at page 14 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

8. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except suspicion, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record.

9. He further submitted, in the present matter, during investigation, along with the applicant number of other accused persons were also made accused and they have already been released on bail.

10. He further submitted applicant is however, having criminal history of one another case but in that case, applicant is on bail and that case relates to provisions of Immoral Trafficking Act.

11. He further submitted in the present matter applicant is in jail since 08.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the principal accused, who was having motive to commit murder of his father and he hired the co-accused Jayveer and co-accused Jayveer committed the murder of the deceased and applicant also had 214 mobile conversations with the co-accused Jayveer and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent but they could not dispute the fact that the sim card, which was allegedly used by the applicant to talk with co-accused Jayveer was in the name of one Kuldeep and as per the witness Kuldeep, co-accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and except the statement of the accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police, there is no evidence that applicant was using the sim card, which was issued in the name of Kuldeep.

13. They however further submitted that in the alleged crime, co- accused Jayveer used the licensed pistol of the applicant but they again could not dispute the fact that from the FSL report it reflects, the pistol of the applicant could not be connected with the present crime.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Jayveer and Ashu @ Saurabh, who were allegedly the main shooter have already been released on bail by this Court.

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

16. It is the case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation, applicant who was son of the deceased has been made accused through the statement of the co-accused Rahul Sharma. However, as per prosecution, applicant used to talk one of the shooter Jayveer and he had 214 times mobile conversations with him but it reflects co-accused Jayveer had mobile conversation from the sim, which was issued in the name of Kuldeep and from the statement of the Kuldeep it reflects co- accused Rahul Sharma had taken his sim and it also reflects except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police there is no other cogent and admissible evidence on record which can shows that applicant was the person, who was using the sim of Kuldeep.

17. Further, however as per the prosecution, shooter Jayveer used the licensed pistol of the applicant in the instant crime but from the FSL report, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application it reflects, alleged pistol of the applicant could not be matched with the bullet, which was found from the body of the deceased.

18. Further along with the applicant, number of other accused persons were also made accused but they have already been released on bail including the alleged shooter Jaiveer and Ashu @ Saurabh.

19. Further, however apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case applicant is on bail and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.09.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

20. Further, law is settled unless proven guilty and accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be withheld for punitive purpose.

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

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

23. Let the applicant- Sonu @ Sobhit 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 27.5.2025 Priya PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad