State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Syed Shahnawz Shah, learned counsel for the first informant. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, at the instance of the applicant Shaukeen son of Maqsood Khan, has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 325, 452, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the Trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide order dated 10.9.2024 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2024. Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR giving rise to the present proceedings was lodged nominating as many as 22 named accused including the applicant and 2-3 unknown persons with the allegation that the informant Asif is the present village Pradhan and the applicant bears enmity with him and has attacked him on several occasion. A day before the Eid, the applicant used abusive language at the Masjid which was opposed by the brother of the informant Abrar. On 15.4.2024, when the 2 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 applicant along with his brother Shahanshah Alam, Abrar, Ishrar and Ansar were setting at their Baithak and talking, then at about 12:00 noon, the applicant along with his accomplices Arif, Shahvej and 2-3 other persons armed with spade, spear, lathi entered into the Baithak and started assaulting the informant and other present. On hearing the commotion, their other party members, namely, Dilshad, Mohsin, Mobin, Sazim, Javed,Nadeem, Oarvez, Imran, Haji Shaid, Mazid, Abid, Shakir, Abuzar, Nazim, Akil @ Bhura, Aftab, Arif, Sajid and Saddam also armed with spear, spade, lathi, danda and country made pistol etc., come on the spot and assaulted the informant and others and beat them up even when trying to escape to save themselves. The uncle of the informant Ishak and his wife Jamila came out to save the informant and others too were assaulted with weapons held in their hands with sharp edged weapons. Further, with a view to destroy the evidence, the applicant is alleged to have asked co- accused Majid to run them over by car. Majid is alleged to have run his car bearing registration No. UP-13-CC4750 over the uncle Ishak and Aunt Jamila. The brother of the informant Ansar also suffered injuries and fell unconscious on the spot. The uncle Ishak and aunt Jamila were taken to government hospital, but were declared dead. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that the incident has not occurred as alleged in the FIR. In the FIR, the applicant has been described as the aggressor. In fact, it is a cross case. An FIR from the side of the applicant was also lodged regarding the same incident resorting to Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., which came to be registered on

1.7.2024 as Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, 354 Kha, 504, 506 IPC, PS Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr against the informant and 25 other accused persons. In the said incident, the applicant sustained injuries and was medically examined by Doctor on 15.4.2024 at the CHC Gulawathi, Bulandshahr and five injuries including injuries on vital part were noted. Co-accused Akhil @ Bhura also sustained injuries and was medically examined on 15.4.2024 itself at CHC Gulawathi, Bulandshahr. Likewise co-accused Shahid and Nadeem were also examined on 15.4.2024 and injuries were noted on vital parts of their bodies. Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has 3 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 argued that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of the applicant, Bhura, Shahid and Nadeem and as such, the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence of the incident and has not presented the true version. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Babu Ram and others versus State of Punjab reported in 2008 (3) SCC 709 as also upon the case of Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394 to buttress the above submission. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has further argued that the charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on

12.7.2023, under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 7.6.2024 and the period of incarcerated is for more than a year. The trial has yet not commenced. The applicant undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail and cooperate in the trial. The criminal antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained. Hence, prayer for bail has been made. Per contra, Shri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also Shri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the informant, who have appeared in opposition to the bail plea, have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the present case is not a cross case as alleged by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Specific role has been assigned to the applicant and the deceased who were harmless elderly persons have been done to death in a most brutal manner. The applicant does not deserve the indulgence of this Court and the bail application warrants outright rejection. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, 354 Kha, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr lodged through application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleges molesting of the informant and other women as well as creating hindrance in the Nikah of the daughters of the informant. the incident is stated to have occurred at the place of the informant Nafisa while the incident of the present Case Crime No. 126 of 2024 has occurred at the place of the informant. In the opinion of the Court, it is not 4 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 a cross case as alleged by counsel for the applicant. After perusal of the materials on record, the Court is further of the opinion that mere fact that the injuries suffered by the side of the applicant having not been explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to absolve the applicant of the offence alleged. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar and Others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2003 [SCC(Crl.)] 1404 in para 10 of the judgment has laid down as under: "Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants faintly submits that the injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, which will affect the prosecution case. The law is now well settled on this subject that where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy, mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case. As noticed above, in the instant case, the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and admits no ambiguity." In view of the above, no good ground is made out to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. August 25, 2025 Anjali/Ravi (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Syed Shahnawz Shah, learned counsel for the first informant. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, at the instance of the applicant Shaukeen son of Maqsood Khan, has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 325, 452, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the Trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide order dated 10.9.2024 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2024. Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR giving rise to the present proceedings was lodged nominating as many as 22 named accused including the applicant and 2-3 unknown persons with the allegation that the informant Asif is the present village Pradhan and the applicant bears enmity with him and has attacked him on several occasion. A day before the Eid, the applicant used abusive language at the Masjid which was opposed by the brother of the informant Abrar. On 15.4.2024, when the 2 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 applicant along with his brother Shahanshah Alam, Abrar, Ishrar and Ansar were setting at their Baithak and talking, then at about 12:00 noon, the applicant along with his accomplices Arif, Shahvej and 2-3 other persons armed with spade, spear, lathi entered into the Baithak and started assaulting the informant and other present. On hearing the commotion, their other party members, namely, Dilshad, Mohsin, Mobin, Sazim, Javed,Nadeem, Oarvez, Imran, Haji Shaid, Mazid, Abid, Shakir, Abuzar, Nazim, Akil @ Bhura, Aftab, Arif, Sajid and Saddam also armed with spear, spade, lathi, danda and country made pistol etc., come on the spot and assaulted the informant and others and beat them up even when trying to escape to save themselves. The uncle of the informant Ishak and his wife Jamila came out to save the informant and others too were assaulted with weapons held in their hands with sharp edged weapons. Further, with a view to destroy the evidence, the applicant is alleged to have asked co- accused Majid to run them over by car. Majid is alleged to have run his car bearing registration No. UP-13-CC4750 over the uncle Ishak and Aunt Jamila. The brother of the informant Ansar also suffered injuries and fell unconscious on the spot. The uncle Ishak and aunt Jamila were taken to government hospital, but were declared dead. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that the incident has not occurred as alleged in the FIR. In the FIR, the applicant has been described as the aggressor. In fact, it is a cross case. An FIR from the side of the applicant was also lodged regarding the same incident resorting to Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., which came to be registered on

1.7.2024 as Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, 354 Kha, 504, 506 IPC, PS Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr against the informant and 25 other accused persons. In the said incident, the applicant sustained injuries and was medically examined by Doctor on 15.4.2024 at the CHC Gulawathi, Bulandshahr and five injuries including injuries on vital part were noted. Co-accused Akhil @ Bhura also sustained injuries and was medically examined on 15.4.2024 itself at CHC Gulawathi, Bulandshahr. Likewise co-accused Shahid and Nadeem were also examined on 15.4.2024 and injuries were noted on vital parts of their bodies. Shri N. I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has 3 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 argued that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of the applicant, Bhura, Shahid and Nadeem and as such, the prosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence of the incident and has not presented the true version. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Babu Ram and others versus State of Punjab reported in 2008 (3) SCC 709 as also upon the case of Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394 to buttress the above submission. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has further argued that the charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on

12.7.2023, under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is incarcerated in jail since 7.6.2024 and the period of incarcerated is for more than a year. The trial has yet not commenced. The applicant undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail and cooperate in the trial. The criminal antecedents of the applicant have been duly explained. Hence, prayer for bail has been made. Per contra, Shri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also Shri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the informant, who have appeared in opposition to the bail plea, have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the present case is not a cross case as alleged by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Specific role has been assigned to the applicant and the deceased who were harmless elderly persons have been done to death in a most brutal manner. The applicant does not deserve the indulgence of this Court and the bail application warrants outright rejection. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that Case Crime No. 224 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 325, 354 Kha, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr lodged through application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleges molesting of the informant and other women as well as creating hindrance in the Nikah of the daughters of the informant. the incident is stated to have occurred at the place of the informant Nafisa while the incident of the present Case Crime No. 126 of 2024 has occurred at the place of the informant. In the opinion of the Court, it is not 4 BAIL No. 6565 of 2025 a cross case as alleged by counsel for the applicant. After perusal of the materials on record, the Court is further of the opinion that mere fact that the injuries suffered by the side of the applicant having not been explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to absolve the applicant of the offence alleged. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar and Others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2003 [SCC(Crl.)] 1404 in para 10 of the judgment has laid down as under: "Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants faintly submits that the injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained by the prosecution, which will affect the prosecution case. The law is now well settled on this subject that where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy, mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case. As noticed above, in the instant case, the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and admits no ambiguity." In view of the above, no good ground is made out to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. August 25, 2025 Anjali/Ravi (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad