High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with three others and as per allegation on 25.06.2024 at about 10.15 PM in the night he and co-accused Amit @ Pintoo by causing firearm injury committed the murder of the uncle of the informant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, incident is said to have taken place on 25.06.2024 at 10.15 PM in the night but FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.06.2024 at 23.35 hours i.e. after more than 24 hours and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that it is based and false and frivolous facts.

5. He further submits, from the FIR however it reflects, one Ratan Singh was along with the deceased at the time of incident but from the record it reflects after the incident deceased was taken to the hospital by Ratan Singh in Ambulance and at that time Ratan Singh informed that some unknown persons caused injury to the deceased and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry dated 26.06.2024 at 00.27 hours i.e. well before the lodgment of the FIR and even G.D. entry completely belies the prosecution case.

6. He further submits, even when the statement of the alleged eye witness Ratan Singh was recorded then he did not assign the role of causing injury to the applicant and according to him co-accused Amit @ Pintoo caused injury to the deceased. He further submits, the statement of witness Ratan Singh was recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. after more than one and half months.

7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution apart from the witness Ratan Singh one Manjeet Singh also witnessed the incident and he also disclosed the name of applicant but according to him also co-accused Amit @ Pintoo caused firearm injury to the deceased. He further submits, even his statement was also recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. after more than one and half months.

8. He further submits, all the above facts clearly indicate that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submits, applicant was not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.06.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statements of both the eye witnesses applicant was driving the vehicle and on his motorcycle co-accused Amit @ Pintoo was sitting, who opened fire, therefore, applicant actively participated but they could not dispute the other arguments of fact advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

12. However, as per allegation applicant was driving the motorcycle and co-accused Amit @ Pintoo was sitting behind him but role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant and it has been attributed to co-accused Amit @ Pintoo.

13. Further, from the record, it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours and no plausible explanation in this regard has been given by the prosecution.

14. Further, G.D. entry dated 26.06.2024 at 00.27 hours, which has been annexed at page-15 of the paper-book indicates that deceased was taken to the hospital in Ambulance by Ratan Singh, the alleged eye witness who according to the prosecution was along with the deceased at the time of incident but it reflects from this G.D. entry that according to Ratan Singh some unknown persons caused firearm injury to the deceased.

15. Further, statement of both the eye witnesses Ratan Singh and Manjeet Singh were recorded after more than one and half months and considering all these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and after the incident only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with others after 24 hours, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant was not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since28.06.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Naveen 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 30.4.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 302, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with three others and as per allegation on 25.06.2024 at about 10.15 PM in the night he and co-accused Amit @ Pintoo by causing firearm injury committed the murder of the uncle of the informant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, incident is said to have taken place on 25.06.2024 at 10.15 PM in the night but FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.06.2024 at 23.35 hours i.e. after more than 24 hours and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself suggests that it is based and false and frivolous facts.

5. He further submits, from the FIR however it reflects, one Ratan Singh was along with the deceased at the time of incident but from the record it reflects after the incident deceased was taken to the hospital by Ratan Singh in Ambulance and at that time Ratan Singh informed that some unknown persons caused injury to the deceased and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry dated 26.06.2024 at 00.27 hours i.e. well before the lodgment of the FIR and even G.D. entry completely belies the prosecution case.

6. He further submits, even when the statement of the alleged eye witness Ratan Singh was recorded then he did not assign the role of causing injury to the applicant and according to him co-accused Amit @ Pintoo caused injury to the deceased. He further submits, the statement of witness Ratan Singh was recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. after more than one and half months.

7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution apart from the witness Ratan Singh one Manjeet Singh also witnessed the incident and he also disclosed the name of applicant but according to him also co-accused Amit @ Pintoo caused firearm injury to the deceased. He further submits, even his statement was also recorded on 18.07.2024 i.e. after more than one and half months.

8. He further submits, all the above facts clearly indicate that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

9. He further submits, applicant was not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.06.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per statements of both the eye witnesses applicant was driving the vehicle and on his motorcycle co-accused Amit @ Pintoo was sitting, who opened fire, therefore, applicant actively participated but they could not dispute the other arguments of fact advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

12. However, as per allegation applicant was driving the motorcycle and co-accused Amit @ Pintoo was sitting behind him but role of causing injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant and it has been attributed to co-accused Amit @ Pintoo.

13. Further, from the record, it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours and no plausible explanation in this regard has been given by the prosecution.

14. Further, G.D. entry dated 26.06.2024 at 00.27 hours, which has been annexed at page-15 of the paper-book indicates that deceased was taken to the hospital in Ambulance by Ratan Singh, the alleged eye witness who according to the prosecution was along with the deceased at the time of incident but it reflects from this G.D. entry that according to Ratan Singh some unknown persons caused firearm injury to the deceased.

15. Further, statement of both the eye witnesses Ratan Singh and Manjeet Singh were recorded after more than one and half months and considering all these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and after the incident only due to previous enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with others after 24 hours, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant was not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since28.06.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Naveen 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 30.4.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad