High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Sudhir, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 120B and 201 IPC, Police Station- Niwadi, District- Ghaziabad. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on 16.12.2024.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR is that on 21.06.2024 applicant along with other co-accused persons made indiscriminate firing due to which two persons died and one Chand sustained firearm injuries and on the alarm raised by informant, Gulzar and other villagers arrived at the spot, the accused persons ran away.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 22.06.2024. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured persons namely Shanwaj @ Raja and Pappu were admitted in Nutirma Hospital, Meerut, where they were declared dead. The injured Chand was medically examined on 22.06.2024 and as per the medical examination report, the injured sustained multiple gunshot wound over the Rt arm Rt side of chest wall, Left temporal area and Left upper neck and on left side of 3rd cervical vertebrae level. X-ray Left arm shown fracture humerus with 2 metalic foreign bodies and as per the opinion of doctor seen shot injury with metallic foreign bodies in neck & left arm with fracture maxilla and left linears. As per the opinion of doctor, the injuries reported were grievous in nature. As per the postmortem report of deceased Shahnawaj @ Raja, the cause of death reported is due to antemortem firearm injuries. As per the postmortem report of deceased Pappu @ Sirajuddin, the cause of death is due to antemortem firearm injuries. It is submitted that after two months, when the second statement of the injured Chand was recorded by the investigating officer in which he has assigned the general role to all the accused persons but when some questions were asked by the investigating officer, then he has shown the complicity of the applicant. The injured Chand in his first statement did not even disclose the name of the applicant and according to him co- accused Deepak and Mohit caused fire arm injuries to him and deceased persons. It is next submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 201, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act. The charge sheet has been filed against the applicant without any proof and there is no reliable evidence against the applicant to connect with any crime and no case is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant along with 6 other named accused persons has committed murder of Pappu and Shahnawaz and also caused gun shot injury to injured Chand on 21.06.2024 at 10:00 p.m. and the incident was also witnessed by the eye witnesses including Gulzar and the first informant Bilal and the entire prosecution story is corroborated with the medical evidence. As per the statement of first informant Bilal was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 22.06.2024 in which he has stated that all the 7 accused persons including the applicant had made indiscriminate firing as a result of which his brother Pappu and nephew Shahnawaz @ Raja had died and Chand also sustained gunshot injuries. The statement of eye witness Gulzar has been recorded in which he has also stated the same fact. The statements of independent witnesses namely Mahendra, Ashu and Islamuddin have also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they have also stated that Chand came the Thiha of Ashu and told them that his father Pappu and brother Shahnawz were killed and he has also sustained injury on account of firing made by applicant and co- accused persons. The investigating officer has recorded the Majeed statement of injured Chand on 18.09.2024, in which he assigned role of shooting to all the accused persons including the applicant. The accused persons had committed heinous crime in which two persons were killed and one person sustained injury on account of indiscriminate firing made by the named accused persons including the applicant and the entire prosecution story is fully corroborated with the medical evidence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence.

9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Sudhir, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 120B and 201 IPC, Police Station- Niwadi, District- Ghaziabad. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on 16.12.2024.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR is that on 21.06.2024 applicant along with other co-accused persons made indiscriminate firing due to which two persons died and one Chand sustained firearm injuries and on the alarm raised by informant, Gulzar and other villagers arrived at the spot, the accused persons ran away.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 22.06.2024. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injured persons namely Shanwaj @ Raja and Pappu were admitted in Nutirma Hospital, Meerut, where they were declared dead. The injured Chand was medically examined on 22.06.2024 and as per the medical examination report, the injured sustained multiple gunshot wound over the Rt arm Rt side of chest wall, Left temporal area and Left upper neck and on left side of 3rd cervical vertebrae level. X-ray Left arm shown fracture humerus with 2 metalic foreign bodies and as per the opinion of doctor seen shot injury with metallic foreign bodies in neck & left arm with fracture maxilla and left linears. As per the opinion of doctor, the injuries reported were grievous in nature. As per the postmortem report of deceased Shahnawaj @ Raja, the cause of death reported is due to antemortem firearm injuries. As per the postmortem report of deceased Pappu @ Sirajuddin, the cause of death is due to antemortem firearm injuries. It is submitted that after two months, when the second statement of the injured Chand was recorded by the investigating officer in which he has assigned the general role to all the accused persons but when some questions were asked by the investigating officer, then he has shown the complicity of the applicant. The injured Chand in his first statement did not even disclose the name of the applicant and according to him co- accused Deepak and Mohit caused fire arm injuries to him and deceased persons. It is next submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 201, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act. The charge sheet has been filed against the applicant without any proof and there is no reliable evidence against the applicant to connect with any crime and no case is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant along with 6 other named accused persons has committed murder of Pappu and Shahnawaz and also caused gun shot injury to injured Chand on 21.06.2024 at 10:00 p.m. and the incident was also witnessed by the eye witnesses including Gulzar and the first informant Bilal and the entire prosecution story is corroborated with the medical evidence. As per the statement of first informant Bilal was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 22.06.2024 in which he has stated that all the 7 accused persons including the applicant had made indiscriminate firing as a result of which his brother Pappu and nephew Shahnawaz @ Raja had died and Chand also sustained gunshot injuries. The statement of eye witness Gulzar has been recorded in which he has also stated the same fact. The statements of independent witnesses namely Mahendra, Ashu and Islamuddin have also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which they have also stated that Chand came the Thiha of Ashu and told them that his father Pappu and brother Shahnawz were killed and he has also sustained injury on account of firing made by applicant and co- accused persons. The investigating officer has recorded the Majeed statement of injured Chand on 18.09.2024, in which he assigned role of shooting to all the accused persons including the applicant. The accused persons had committed heinous crime in which two persons were killed and one person sustained injury on account of indiscriminate firing made by the named accused persons including the applicant and the entire prosecution story is fully corroborated with the medical evidence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence.

9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 v.k.updh. VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad