State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Shri P. S. Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record.

2. The F.I.R. was lodged against three persons named persons including the applicant and one unknown person. In the F.I.R. the informant alleges that on account of previous enmity all the named accused including the applicant with intention to kill his brother fired shots from their firearms, on hearing noise of firing made by gunshots and the screams of his brother some persons reached at the spot and took his brother to the hospital. In the F.I.R. it has also been alleged that prior to the alleged occurrence brother of informant had made a complaint against some persons including all the accused named in the F.I.R. regarding embezzlement of government money, on account of which the informant's brother was given threats by the accused persons. In the alleged incident the injured brother of the informant succumbed to injuries after two days after the said occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The informant in his statement before the police has also stated that he inquired about the incident from his brother then he informed the police in writing. The injured (later died) in his statement before the police has stated that the present applicant and one other co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Guddu had fired shots upon him, but the applicant had fired upon him. Learned counsel further submits that at the trial the informant appeared as P.W.1 who in his statement had stated that he does not remember that whatever his injured brother had stated to the police whether he stated to the police or not and whether the police had written the same on any paper or case diary and he also does not remember that on the basis of statement of his injured brother whether he had got submitted written report to the police station or not. Learned 2 BAIL No. 3713 of 2025 counsel further submits one witness namely Ekhlaq also appeared as P.W.2 at the trial who in his statement has stated that on the date and time of occurrence when he was leaving after attending nature's call near the pond he heard noise of gunshots, thereafter, after some time he saw that Arif @ Guddu, Yasir (present applicant) and Phoolchandra were coming while holding firearm weapons in their hands while stating that they had finished the informant's brother. Thus, learned counsel states that this witness P.W.2 has also not seen the actual occurrence. One co-accused, Afroj @ Bablu @ Waseem Jafar, against whom allegation of hatching of conspiracy has been made has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that one other witness namely Mohd. Haris in his statement before the police has stated that before the occurrence he saw that three accused, i.e., Mohd. Arif @ Guddu, Yasir (applicant) and Phoolchandra Rajbhar were going towards pond and Phoolchandra and Yasir (applicant) were having firearm weapons in their hands and if this evidence is taken to be true on its value then role of firing goes to these two accused, i.e., Phoolchandra and Yasir (applicant) then the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail as the said co-accused, Phoolchandra Rajbhar has already been granted bail. Learned counsel lastly argued that there are various material contradictions in the version of F.I.R., statements of injured and other witnesses but it is apparent on the face of record that no one had actually seen the actual occurrence, therefore, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. So far as criminal history of applicant is concerned it is stated that there are two cases into the credit of applicant and out of those in case the applicant is acquitted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.10.2023.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the deceased in his statement before the police has specifically stated that applicant is actively involved in the commission of offence, therefore, his innocence cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage and thus his bail application is liable to be rejected.

5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

6. Let the applicant-Yasir, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 3 BAIL No. 3713 of 2025 2023, under Sections 302, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Khetasarai, District- Jaunpur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. vi) Trial court is directed to make all possible efforts/ endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. September 10, 2025 Mustaqeem./S.Mishra (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri P. S. Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record.

2. The F.I.R. was lodged against three persons named persons including the applicant and one unknown person. In the F.I.R. the informant alleges that on account of previous enmity all the named accused including the applicant with intention to kill his brother fired shots from their firearms, on hearing noise of firing made by gunshots and the screams of his brother some persons reached at the spot and took his brother to the hospital. In the F.I.R. it has also been alleged that prior to the alleged occurrence brother of informant had made a complaint against some persons including all the accused named in the F.I.R. regarding embezzlement of government money, on account of which the informant's brother was given threats by the accused persons. In the alleged incident the injured brother of the informant succumbed to injuries after two days after the said occurrence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. The informant in his statement before the police has also stated that he inquired about the incident from his brother then he informed the police in writing. The injured (later died) in his statement before the police has stated that the present applicant and one other co-accused Mohd. Arif @ Guddu had fired shots upon him, but the applicant had fired upon him. Learned counsel further submits that at the trial the informant appeared as P.W.1 who in his statement had stated that he does not remember that whatever his injured brother had stated to the police whether he stated to the police or not and whether the police had written the same on any paper or case diary and he also does not remember that on the basis of statement of his injured brother whether he had got submitted written report to the police station or not. Learned 2 BAIL No. 3713 of 2025 counsel further submits one witness namely Ekhlaq also appeared as P.W.2 at the trial who in his statement has stated that on the date and time of occurrence when he was leaving after attending nature's call near the pond he heard noise of gunshots, thereafter, after some time he saw that Arif @ Guddu, Yasir (present applicant) and Phoolchandra were coming while holding firearm weapons in their hands while stating that they had finished the informant's brother. Thus, learned counsel states that this witness P.W.2 has also not seen the actual occurrence. One co-accused, Afroj @ Bablu @ Waseem Jafar, against whom allegation of hatching of conspiracy has been made has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that one other witness namely Mohd. Haris in his statement before the police has stated that before the occurrence he saw that three accused, i.e., Mohd. Arif @ Guddu, Yasir (applicant) and Phoolchandra Rajbhar were going towards pond and Phoolchandra and Yasir (applicant) were having firearm weapons in their hands and if this evidence is taken to be true on its value then role of firing goes to these two accused, i.e., Phoolchandra and Yasir (applicant) then the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail as the said co-accused, Phoolchandra Rajbhar has already been granted bail. Learned counsel lastly argued that there are various material contradictions in the version of F.I.R., statements of injured and other witnesses but it is apparent on the face of record that no one had actually seen the actual occurrence, therefore, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. So far as criminal history of applicant is concerned it is stated that there are two cases into the credit of applicant and out of those in case the applicant is acquitted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.10.2023.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the deceased in his statement before the police has specifically stated that applicant is actively involved in the commission of offence, therefore, his innocence cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage and thus his bail application is liable to be rejected.

5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

6. Let the applicant-Yasir, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 3 BAIL No. 3713 of 2025 2023, under Sections 302, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Khetasarai, District- Jaunpur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. vi) Trial court is directed to make all possible efforts/ endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. September 10, 2025 Mustaqeem./S.Mishra (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad