Chanchal Yadav v. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which

Applicant :- Puttu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Verma Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Vijay Kumar Verma is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.

4. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Puttu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 684 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.11.2024 by Ankita against the applicant, Bhoorey, Rajveer and Chanchal alleging therein that on 27.11.2024 at about 07:00 pm her husband Nanhey Babu after closing shop was coming and when he reached near the house of Radha then due to old enmity, the accused persons surrounded him while being armed with country made pistols and fired on him. The incident has been seen by elder son of her jeth. Her husband was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is named in the FIR along with three other co-accused persons but common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. It is submitted that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that elder son of the jeth of the first informant being Shyam Babu was then interrogated who stated that the applicant and co-accused Chanchal Yadav fired in the air whereas co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer fired upon Nanhey Babu the deceased. It is submitted that as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Bhoorey and Rajveer who have been assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased by the eye witness Shyam Babu. It is further submitted that co- accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10874 of 2025 (Chanchal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. Further while placing para 28 of the affidavit in support of the bail application and para 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 30.03.2025 it is submitted that the applicant has involved in one other case but the said case are trivial in nature. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2024.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and was with the assailants at the time of incident. The fact that co-accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail is not disputed. Further the fact that eye witness Shyam Babu has assigned the role of firing on the deceased Nanhey Babu by co-accused Bhoorey and Rajveer is also not disputed.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. Common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. Eye witness Shyam Babu assigns the role of firing in the air to the applicant and Chanchal Yadav. Co-accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The role of firing upon the deceased Nanhey Babu has been assigned to co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer by Shyam Babu the eye witness.

9. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant Puttu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Puttu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Verma Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Vijay Kumar Verma is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it.

4. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Puttu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 684 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.11.2024 by Ankita against the applicant, Bhoorey, Rajveer and Chanchal alleging therein that on 27.11.2024 at about 07:00 pm her husband Nanhey Babu after closing shop was coming and when he reached near the house of Radha then due to old enmity, the accused persons surrounded him while being armed with country made pistols and fired on him. The incident has been seen by elder son of her jeth. Her husband was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Report be lodged and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is named in the FIR along with three other co-accused persons but common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. It is submitted that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that elder son of the jeth of the first informant being Shyam Babu was then interrogated who stated that the applicant and co-accused Chanchal Yadav fired in the air whereas co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer fired upon Nanhey Babu the deceased. It is submitted that as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Bhoorey and Rajveer who have been assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased by the eye witness Shyam Babu. It is further submitted that co- accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10874 of 2025 (Chanchal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. Further while placing para 28 of the affidavit in support of the bail application and para 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 30.03.2025 it is submitted that the applicant has involved in one other case but the said case are trivial in nature. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2024.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and was with the assailants at the time of incident. The fact that co-accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail is not disputed. Further the fact that eye witness Shyam Babu has assigned the role of firing on the deceased Nanhey Babu by co-accused Bhoorey and Rajveer is also not disputed.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. Common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. Eye witness Shyam Babu assigns the role of firing in the air to the applicant and Chanchal Yadav. Co-accused Chanchal Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The role of firing upon the deceased Nanhey Babu has been assigned to co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer by Shyam Babu the eye witness.

9. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co- accused Bhoorey and Rajveer.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant Puttu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad