State of U.P v. Party

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.362 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District- Shamli, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The named accused persons, namely, Amit, Rohit, Akshay, are stated to have committed the murder of the son of the informant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself is delayed as no time of offence is mentioned in it.

6. Subsequently, the statements of three eye-witnesses, namely, Pappal, Ajay and Amit, were recorded by the Investigating Officer and they have nominated the applicant to be one of the assailants, who had committed the 2 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 said murder by causing gunshot injury to the deceased person.

7. The two other eye-witnesses Ajay and Amit were present at the time of inquest proceedings, which were undertaken on 11.10.2023 itself, but they did not whisper a single word against the applicant or any other accused person.

8. After a delay of seven days of the institution of FIR, the statements of said eye-witnesses were recorded and they had nominated the applicant to be one of the assailants who had fired at the deceased person.

9. Subsequently, the star witness Pappal to whose house the deceased person had gone, in his supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that the applicant alongwith co-accused persons Aniket and Adesh had fired at the deceased person while the co-accused person Adesh has been enlarged on bail, as such, the case of applicant is at par with the said accused Adesh.

10. The only impediment that will come in the case of applicant is that bail application of co-accused person Aniket has been rejected by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and the very same Bench has granted bail to six other accused persons including three named in the FIR.

11. The prosecution is not sure about its own story and strayed at several places. The only eye-witness Pappal has been examined as PW-3 and the other witnesses PW-1 & PW-2 are formal witnesses. As such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

12. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that case of applicant is at par with co-accused person Aniket, whose bail application has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As such, he is not entitled for bail. 3 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 CONCLUSION:

14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

17. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant was not named in the FIR and his name has come up for the first time after seven days of the institution of FIR coupled by the fact that even the statement of star witness Pappal is self- contradictory at two stages, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Ankit, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties 4 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

21. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 27, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.362 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District- Shamli, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The named accused persons, namely, Amit, Rohit, Akshay, are stated to have committed the murder of the son of the informant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself is delayed as no time of offence is mentioned in it.

6. Subsequently, the statements of three eye-witnesses, namely, Pappal, Ajay and Amit, were recorded by the Investigating Officer and they have nominated the applicant to be one of the assailants, who had committed the 2 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 said murder by causing gunshot injury to the deceased person.

7. The two other eye-witnesses Ajay and Amit were present at the time of inquest proceedings, which were undertaken on 11.10.2023 itself, but they did not whisper a single word against the applicant or any other accused person.

8. After a delay of seven days of the institution of FIR, the statements of said eye-witnesses were recorded and they had nominated the applicant to be one of the assailants who had fired at the deceased person.

9. Subsequently, the star witness Pappal to whose house the deceased person had gone, in his supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that the applicant alongwith co-accused persons Aniket and Adesh had fired at the deceased person while the co-accused person Adesh has been enlarged on bail, as such, the case of applicant is at par with the said accused Adesh.

10. The only impediment that will come in the case of applicant is that bail application of co-accused person Aniket has been rejected by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and the very same Bench has granted bail to six other accused persons including three named in the FIR.

11. The prosecution is not sure about its own story and strayed at several places. The only eye-witness Pappal has been examined as PW-3 and the other witnesses PW-1 & PW-2 are formal witnesses. As such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

12. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that case of applicant is at par with co-accused person Aniket, whose bail application has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As such, he is not entitled for bail. 3 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 CONCLUSION:

14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty" gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

17. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant was not named in the FIR and his name has come up for the first time after seven days of the institution of FIR coupled by the fact that even the statement of star witness Pappal is self- contradictory at two stages, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Ankit, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties 4 BAIL No. 4162 of 2025 be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

21. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 27, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)