High Court · 2025

1. Sri Deepak Kumar, learned Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506, 307, 120B, 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.04.2024 against 13 persons including applicant and according to the FIR on 10.04.2024 at about 10:00 PM in the night due to previous dispute applicant and other nominated accused persons after entering in the house of the informant made assault through sharp edge weapon and wooden sticks and due to the assault made by them eight persons sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false, general and omnibus allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with 13 others. He further submits, it appears to be a case of over implication.

6. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar were also made accused in the FIR on the basis of general allegations and all the above accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.10.2024, 27.09.2024 and 31.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 38138 of 2024, 34876 of 2024 and 29851 of 2024.

7. He further submits, the case of applicant is exactly at par with the above accused persons, who have already been released on bail except the fact that on the pointing out of the applicant one wooden stick was recovered.

8. He further submits, the alleged wooden stick was recovered after about one month from an open place, therefore, that recovery is immaterial.

9. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Waseem was also made accused in the FIR of the present case with similar allegation but his bail application has been dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25773 of 2024 but his case is distinguishable from the case of applicant as on his pointing out blood stained wooden was recovered and from the possession of applicant however, wooden stick alleged to have been recovered but in that wooden stick no blood stain was found. He further submits, even law is settled that there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

10. He further submits, as almost similarly placed co-accused have been released on bail, therefore, considering the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.05.2024 i.e. for almost ten months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted however co- accused persons Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar have been released on bail by this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from them as on the pointing out of the applicant one wooden stick was also recovered and no such recovery was made from the possession of co-accused persons, who were released on bail.

13. They further submitted, on the pointing out of co-accused Waseem also wooden stick was recovered and his bail application has been dismissed by this Court but they could not dispute the fact that from the recovery memo, it reflects, on the pointing out of the applicant unstained wooden stick was recovered while on the pointing out of co-accused Waseem blood stained wooden stick was recovered.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that except the recovery of wooden stick on the pointing out of the applicant, the case of applicant is exactly at par with them, who have been released on bail. They further could not dispute the fact that alleged recovered wooden stick was recovered on the pointing out of applicant after a month from an open place which was accessible to all. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

16. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, in the FIR apart from the applicant as many as 12 other persons were also named and only general allegations have been made against all the accused and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, it is a case in which in the alleged assault made by the applicant and others as may as eight persons sustained injuries and subsequently one person died but it reflects, injuries sustained by all the injured were simple in nature.

18. Record further suggests, along with applicant co-accused Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar were also made accused with similar allegation and they have been released on bail by this Court, however, record further suggests that when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one wooden stick was recovered, which was alleged to have been used in the crime but that recovery was made after about one month from an open place which was accessible to all.

19. Further, however, record also suggests that bail application of co-accused Waseem has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it reflects on his pointing out also one wooden stick was recovered but from recovery memo it reflects, on the wooden stick which was recovered on the pointing out of co- accused Waseem blood stained was found but in the alleged recovery which was made on the pointing out of applicant no blood was found, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Waseem cannot be brushed aside.

20. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

21. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.05.2024 i.e. for almost ten months.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Sadik @ Farman 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 5.3.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Deepak Kumar, learned Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506, 307, 120B, 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.04.2024 against 13 persons including applicant and according to the FIR on 10.04.2024 at about 10:00 PM in the night due to previous dispute applicant and other nominated accused persons after entering in the house of the informant made assault through sharp edge weapon and wooden sticks and due to the assault made by them eight persons sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false, general and omnibus allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with 13 others. He further submits, it appears to be a case of over implication.

6. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar were also made accused in the FIR on the basis of general allegations and all the above accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.10.2024, 27.09.2024 and 31.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 38138 of 2024, 34876 of 2024 and 29851 of 2024.

7. He further submits, the case of applicant is exactly at par with the above accused persons, who have already been released on bail except the fact that on the pointing out of the applicant one wooden stick was recovered.

8. He further submits, the alleged wooden stick was recovered after about one month from an open place, therefore, that recovery is immaterial.

9. He further submits, along with applicant co-accused Waseem was also made accused in the FIR of the present case with similar allegation but his bail application has been dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25773 of 2024 but his case is distinguishable from the case of applicant as on his pointing out blood stained wooden was recovered and from the possession of applicant however, wooden stick alleged to have been recovered but in that wooden stick no blood stain was found. He further submits, even law is settled that there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

10. He further submits, as almost similarly placed co-accused have been released on bail, therefore, considering the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.05.2024 i.e. for almost ten months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted however co- accused persons Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar have been released on bail by this Court but case of applicant is distinguishable from them as on the pointing out of the applicant one wooden stick was also recovered and no such recovery was made from the possession of co-accused persons, who were released on bail.

13. They further submitted, on the pointing out of co-accused Waseem also wooden stick was recovered and his bail application has been dismissed by this Court but they could not dispute the fact that from the recovery memo, it reflects, on the pointing out of the applicant unstained wooden stick was recovered while on the pointing out of co-accused Waseem blood stained wooden stick was recovered.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that except the recovery of wooden stick on the pointing out of the applicant, the case of applicant is exactly at par with them, who have been released on bail. They further could not dispute the fact that alleged recovered wooden stick was recovered on the pointing out of applicant after a month from an open place which was accessible to all. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

16. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, in the FIR apart from the applicant as many as 12 other persons were also named and only general allegations have been made against all the accused and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears to be a case of over implication, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

17. Further, however, it is a case in which in the alleged assault made by the applicant and others as may as eight persons sustained injuries and subsequently one person died but it reflects, injuries sustained by all the injured were simple in nature.

18. Record further suggests, along with applicant co-accused Salman, Shakeel, Naim, Nazim and Sattar were also made accused with similar allegation and they have been released on bail by this Court, however, record further suggests that when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one wooden stick was recovered, which was alleged to have been used in the crime but that recovery was made after about one month from an open place which was accessible to all.

19. Further, however, record also suggests that bail application of co-accused Waseem has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it reflects on his pointing out also one wooden stick was recovered but from recovery memo it reflects, on the wooden stick which was recovered on the pointing out of co- accused Waseem blood stained was found but in the alleged recovery which was made on the pointing out of applicant no blood was found, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Waseem cannot be brushed aside.

20. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even there can be no parity of bail rejection order.

21. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.05.2024 i.e. for almost ten months.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Sadik @ Farman 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 5.3.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad