Chaudhary v. State of U.P.) has been rejected by this Court vide order dated

2. Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant-Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu, Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsels for the applicant-Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant-Israr, Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State in all three bail applications are present and have been heard.

3. These three bail applications are connected together as they arise out of same case crime number and are of co-accused persons. The bail application of co-accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu and Israr are the first bail applications. The bail application of accused Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary is the second bail application. His first bail application being Criminal Bail Application No. 55559 of 2021 (Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur 2 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.) has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2022. The bail application of accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 30.04.2024.

4. Office had placed the records of Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26920 of 2021 (Israr Vs. State of U.P.) before Hon'ble The Chief Justice in compliance of an order dated 06.11.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench along with office report dated 16.11.2023 subsequent to which, the same was also nominated to this Bench vide order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice. The matters are thus before this Court.

5. The facts common in all the matters are that a First Information Report was lodged on 26.02.2021 by Smt. Prachi Verma against Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Rajesh Chaudhary @ Bade Lal, Bhoora, Altaf, Mate @ Amit as Case Crime No. 0074 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Etawah with the allegation that on 25.02.2021 at about 10:15 pm she was standing outside the house along with her jeth Vimal Verma who was previously a Corporator and her husband Jitendra Verma @ Monu was coming home on his motorcycle on which the five named accused persons who were lying in wait since before threw her husband down in front of house of Dr. Bajpayee and with country made pistols in their hands with an intention to murder him fired many fires on him on which on the exhortation given by her and her jeth Vimal Verma, the accused persons ran away. The entire incident was seen by her in the light present there. All the accused persons were having enmity since before with her husband. The accused persons have together committed murder of her husband. A report be lodged and action be taken. Chetan Verma is the scribe of the said FIR.

6. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 26.02.2021 from 12:40 pm to 13:45 pm. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 26.02.2021 and the doctor found six gun shot wounds in which there were three wounds of entry and three wounds of exit, two contusions, one abrasion and one lacerated wound being a total of 10 injuries and opined the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm injuries.

7. The investigation concluded and a charge sheet dated 22.05.2021 was submitted against Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Israr, Anwar Ahmad @ Ranu, Sagir @ Bhoora and Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC on which the court concerned took cognizance. The accused Rajesh Chaudhary @ Bade Lal and Mujeeb who were including during investigation were exonerated and their names finds place in column No. 12 of charge sheet in the accused persons not being charge-sheeted.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu submitted that common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is submitted that there is no specification of the role of the applicant. It is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 3 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021

18.01.2023 that co-accused Anwar Ahmad @ Ranu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19574 of 2021 (Anwar Ahamd @ Ranu Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been placed before the Court which is annexure S.A.1 to the said supplementary affidavit. Further, it submitted that co-accused Mujeev has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49188 of 2021 (Muzeev Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure S.A.2 to the said supplementary affidavit. While placing S.A. 3 to the said supplementary affidavit being the statement of Prachi Patel the first informant recorded before the trial court as PW-1 it is submitted that the said witness has for the first time stated that two accused namely Rajesh Chaudhary and Betu Chaudhary had covered their faces and were wearing dhata. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.03.2021.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary submitted that this is the second bail application. While placing the statement of Prachi Patel/PW-1 annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit in support of the bail application and also the statement of Vimal Verma PW-2 recorded before the trial court who is the jeth of the first informant it is submitted that although the said two persons claimed themselves to be eye witnesses but they are not the eye witnesses. It is submitted that the said witnesses have for the first time stated in it that out of five accused, two accused had covered their faces. It is submitted that as such the testimony of the said two witnesses is totally unbelievable. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.02.2021.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Israr submitted that the applicant is not named in the present matter and from the records it transpires that the accused named therein is Altaf son of Afsar who has been subsequently stated to be Israr and as such the applicant has been made as an accused in the matter. While placing annexure 3 and 7 to the affidavit being the two G.D. entries of G.D. No. 002 and 031 it is submitted that in the said documents, the accused referred to is Altaf son of Afsar who is later on stated to be the applicant. It is submitted that Vimal Verma in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is annexure 6 to the affidavit has stated that the person Altaf was not there but his correct name is Israr. Further, it is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 17.08.2023 annexures SA-1 and SA-2 to the same being the statement of Prachi Patel PW-1 and Vimal Verma PW-2 that reading of the same would go to show that the presence of the said witnesses is totally doubtful. It is submitted that the said witnesses do not fall in the category of reliable witnesses. It is further submitted while placing para 20 of the affidavit that the deceased was a person having criminal antecedents and five criminal cases pending against him and as such the possibility of his being assaulted by someone else cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the incident in the present case is said to have taken place on 25.02.2021 at about 22:15 hours but the FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2021 at about 12:15 hours which is after a delay of about 14 hours for which there is no 4 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 plausible explanation. It is further submitted that there is no explanation by the prosecution regarding two contusions, one lacerated wound and one abrasion received by the deceased. It is submitted that the same thus goes to show that the FIR was a document prepared after consultation and contents therein, cannot be believed to be true. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the testimony of all the witnesses have been examined and only the testimony of one witness remains to be recorded and thus there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2021.

11. Learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed all the bail applications and submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR. It is submitted that as per the postmortem examination report, the deceased had received 10 injuries on his body which corroborate with the prosecution story and the manner of the incident therein and the manner of assault. It is submitted that there has been recovery of a country made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant Israr for which a separate FIR as Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act has been lodged on 28.02.2021, para 7 and annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit dated 08.05.2022 of opposite party has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the first informant and Vimal Verma are natural witnesses of the incident. It is submitted that both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case while being produced and examined before the trial court. It is submitted that in so far as the bail of co-accused Betu Chaudhary is concerned, the same is a second bail application and his first bail application was rejected by a detailed order on merits by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2022. It is submitted that there is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application of the said accused. It is submitted that all the bail applications be thus rejected.

12. Learned counsel for the State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. It is submitted further that Israr and Altaf is the same person as his father has only one son Israr who is an accused. It is submitted that there is no discrepancy in the same. It is submitted that the medical examination report supports the prosecution case. The applicants are named in the FIR and the presence of the first informant and Vimal Verma also is stated by them in their testimony before the trial court who have supported the entire prosecution version. It is submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and release of the applicants at this stage, may not be in the fitness of things. It is submitted that the bail applications be rejected.

13. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the bail application of accused Betu Chaudhary is a second bail application. The first bail application of the said accused was rejected by this Court vide order 04.04.2022. The same reads as under: "Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- 5 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the incident is of 25.02.2021 at about 22.15 hours for which the FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2021 at about 12.15 p.m. which is after about 14 hours of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation about the delay. It is further argued that in the FIR, general and common role of assault upon the deceased Jitendra Verma alias Monu, the husband of the first informant Smt. Prachi Verma has been assigned to the applicant, co-accused Rajesh Chaudhary alias Bade Lal, Bhoora, Altaf and Matey alias Amit using country-made pistol and firing upon him. It is further argued that the first informant has claimed herself and Vimal Verma, her Jeth as the eye- witnesses of the incident. Subsequently the G.D of the return of field unit was transcribed on 27.2.2021 at about 2.30 hours in which it was stated by the persons of the field unit that the first informant told them that her husband was shot by some persons in which Betu Chaudhary was also present. It is argued that Vimal Verma, the Jeth of the first informant has in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that when he read the FIR then he saw that he has mentioned the name of Altaf in the application whereas correct name is Israr. It is further argued that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case as the deceased was found to have received three gun-shot wounds of entry with their respective exits and further there were two contusions and one abrasion and a lacerated wound and there was laceration on the cerebral vessels and on the brain, as such there is no explanation of the said injuries. It is argued that as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 28.2.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation against him of assault upon the deceased. It is argued that the first informant and Vimal Verma, her Jeth are eye-witnesses of the incident. Even the place of occurrence as per the site-plan is the same as stated in the FIR. The presence of the said two witnesses is natural. The house of the first informant is near the place of occurrence and as such it cannot be said that they were present by chance, as such the prayer for bail be rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased has received as many as ten injuries on his person. The first informant and Vimal Verma, her Jeth are eye-witnesses of the incident and their presence is natural. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

14. In so far as he is concerned, an effort has been made to show the statements of the witnesses recorded in the trial and appreciate the same. In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. appreciation of the statement given in trial will not be proper. It is further submitted that it is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. The said bail application thus does not have any fresh and new ground and is rejected.

15. In so far as the bail of other two co-accused are concerned, the applicants are named in the FIR and have been assigned the specific role in the same. The deceased has received 10 injuries on his person out of which there are gun shot injuries. In so far as the other injuries are concerned, the case of the prosecution was that the deceased was initially stopped and thrown on the ground and was then fired upon. The injuries thus corroborate with the prosecution story. The trial is at an advanced stage. Appreciating the statements of the witnesses and giving a finding about the 6 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 same in an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not in the interest of justice. There is also recovery of country made pistol on the pointing out of accused Israr. The case of co-accused who have been granted bail stands on different footing as that of the applicants.

16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail, hence, all the bail applications are, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant-Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu, Sri Sarvesh Dubey and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsels for the applicant-Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant-Israr, Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State in all three bail applications are present and have been heard.

3. These three bail applications are connected together as they arise out of same case crime number and are of co-accused persons. The bail application of co-accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu and Israr are the first bail applications. The bail application of accused Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary is the second bail application. His first bail application being Criminal Bail Application No. 55559 of 2021 (Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur 2 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.) has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2022. The bail application of accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu has been nominated to this Bench by Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 30.04.2024.

4. Office had placed the records of Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26920 of 2021 (Israr Vs. State of U.P.) before Hon'ble The Chief Justice in compliance of an order dated 06.11.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench along with office report dated 16.11.2023 subsequent to which, the same was also nominated to this Bench vide order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice. The matters are thus before this Court.

5. The facts common in all the matters are that a First Information Report was lodged on 26.02.2021 by Smt. Prachi Verma against Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Rajesh Chaudhary @ Bade Lal, Bhoora, Altaf, Mate @ Amit as Case Crime No. 0074 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Etawah with the allegation that on 25.02.2021 at about 10:15 pm she was standing outside the house along with her jeth Vimal Verma who was previously a Corporator and her husband Jitendra Verma @ Monu was coming home on his motorcycle on which the five named accused persons who were lying in wait since before threw her husband down in front of house of Dr. Bajpayee and with country made pistols in their hands with an intention to murder him fired many fires on him on which on the exhortation given by her and her jeth Vimal Verma, the accused persons ran away. The entire incident was seen by her in the light present there. All the accused persons were having enmity since before with her husband. The accused persons have together committed murder of her husband. A report be lodged and action be taken. Chetan Verma is the scribe of the said FIR.

6. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on 26.02.2021 from 12:40 pm to 13:45 pm. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 26.02.2021 and the doctor found six gun shot wounds in which there were three wounds of entry and three wounds of exit, two contusions, one abrasion and one lacerated wound being a total of 10 injuries and opined the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm injuries.

7. The investigation concluded and a charge sheet dated 22.05.2021 was submitted against Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, Israr, Anwar Ahmad @ Ranu, Sagir @ Bhoora and Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC on which the court concerned took cognizance. The accused Rajesh Chaudhary @ Bade Lal and Mujeeb who were including during investigation were exonerated and their names finds place in column No. 12 of charge sheet in the accused persons not being charge-sheeted.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Amit @ Mate @ Chhotu submitted that common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is submitted that there is no specification of the role of the applicant. It is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 3 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021

18.01.2023 that co-accused Anwar Ahmad @ Ranu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19574 of 2021 (Anwar Ahamd @ Ranu Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been placed before the Court which is annexure S.A.1 to the said supplementary affidavit. Further, it submitted that co-accused Mujeev has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49188 of 2021 (Muzeev Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure S.A.2 to the said supplementary affidavit. While placing S.A. 3 to the said supplementary affidavit being the statement of Prachi Patel the first informant recorded before the trial court as PW-1 it is submitted that the said witness has for the first time stated that two accused namely Rajesh Chaudhary and Betu Chaudhary had covered their faces and were wearing dhata. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.03.2021.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary submitted that this is the second bail application. While placing the statement of Prachi Patel/PW-1 annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit in support of the bail application and also the statement of Vimal Verma PW-2 recorded before the trial court who is the jeth of the first informant it is submitted that although the said two persons claimed themselves to be eye witnesses but they are not the eye witnesses. It is submitted that the said witnesses have for the first time stated in it that out of five accused, two accused had covered their faces. It is submitted that as such the testimony of the said two witnesses is totally unbelievable. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.02.2021.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused Israr submitted that the applicant is not named in the present matter and from the records it transpires that the accused named therein is Altaf son of Afsar who has been subsequently stated to be Israr and as such the applicant has been made as an accused in the matter. While placing annexure 3 and 7 to the affidavit being the two G.D. entries of G.D. No. 002 and 031 it is submitted that in the said documents, the accused referred to is Altaf son of Afsar who is later on stated to be the applicant. It is submitted that Vimal Verma in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is annexure 6 to the affidavit has stated that the person Altaf was not there but his correct name is Israr. Further, it is submitted while placing supplementary affidavit dated 17.08.2023 annexures SA-1 and SA-2 to the same being the statement of Prachi Patel PW-1 and Vimal Verma PW-2 that reading of the same would go to show that the presence of the said witnesses is totally doubtful. It is submitted that the said witnesses do not fall in the category of reliable witnesses. It is further submitted while placing para 20 of the affidavit that the deceased was a person having criminal antecedents and five criminal cases pending against him and as such the possibility of his being assaulted by someone else cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the incident in the present case is said to have taken place on 25.02.2021 at about 22:15 hours but the FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2021 at about 12:15 hours which is after a delay of about 14 hours for which there is no 4 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 plausible explanation. It is further submitted that there is no explanation by the prosecution regarding two contusions, one lacerated wound and one abrasion received by the deceased. It is submitted that the same thus goes to show that the FIR was a document prepared after consultation and contents therein, cannot be believed to be true. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the testimony of all the witnesses have been examined and only the testimony of one witness remains to be recorded and thus there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2021.

11. Learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed all the bail applications and submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR. It is submitted that as per the postmortem examination report, the deceased had received 10 injuries on his body which corroborate with the prosecution story and the manner of the incident therein and the manner of assault. It is submitted that there has been recovery of a country made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant Israr for which a separate FIR as Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act has been lodged on 28.02.2021, para 7 and annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit dated 08.05.2022 of opposite party has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the first informant and Vimal Verma are natural witnesses of the incident. It is submitted that both the witnesses have supported the prosecution case while being produced and examined before the trial court. It is submitted that in so far as the bail of co-accused Betu Chaudhary is concerned, the same is a second bail application and his first bail application was rejected by a detailed order on merits by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2022. It is submitted that there is no fresh and new ground in the present bail application of the said accused. It is submitted that all the bail applications be thus rejected.

12. Learned counsel for the State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. It is submitted further that Israr and Altaf is the same person as his father has only one son Israr who is an accused. It is submitted that there is no discrepancy in the same. It is submitted that the medical examination report supports the prosecution case. The applicants are named in the FIR and the presence of the first informant and Vimal Verma also is stated by them in their testimony before the trial court who have supported the entire prosecution version. It is submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and release of the applicants at this stage, may not be in the fitness of things. It is submitted that the bail applications be rejected.

13. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the bail application of accused Betu Chaudhary is a second bail application. The first bail application of the said accused was rejected by this Court vide order 04.04.2022. The same reads as under: "Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- 5 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 Betu Chaudhary @ Ankur Chaudhary, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the incident is of 25.02.2021 at about 22.15 hours for which the FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2021 at about 12.15 p.m. which is after about 14 hours of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation about the delay. It is further argued that in the FIR, general and common role of assault upon the deceased Jitendra Verma alias Monu, the husband of the first informant Smt. Prachi Verma has been assigned to the applicant, co-accused Rajesh Chaudhary alias Bade Lal, Bhoora, Altaf and Matey alias Amit using country-made pistol and firing upon him. It is further argued that the first informant has claimed herself and Vimal Verma, her Jeth as the eye- witnesses of the incident. Subsequently the G.D of the return of field unit was transcribed on 27.2.2021 at about 2.30 hours in which it was stated by the persons of the field unit that the first informant told them that her husband was shot by some persons in which Betu Chaudhary was also present. It is argued that Vimal Verma, the Jeth of the first informant has in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that when he read the FIR then he saw that he has mentioned the name of Altaf in the application whereas correct name is Israr. It is further argued that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case as the deceased was found to have received three gun-shot wounds of entry with their respective exits and further there were two contusions and one abrasion and a lacerated wound and there was laceration on the cerebral vessels and on the brain, as such there is no explanation of the said injuries. It is argued that as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 28.2.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation against him of assault upon the deceased. It is argued that the first informant and Vimal Verma, her Jeth are eye-witnesses of the incident. Even the place of occurrence as per the site-plan is the same as stated in the FIR. The presence of the said two witnesses is natural. The house of the first informant is near the place of occurrence and as such it cannot be said that they were present by chance, as such the prayer for bail be rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased has received as many as ten injuries on his person. The first informant and Vimal Verma, her Jeth are eye-witnesses of the incident and their presence is natural. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

14. In so far as he is concerned, an effort has been made to show the statements of the witnesses recorded in the trial and appreciate the same. In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. appreciation of the statement given in trial will not be proper. It is further submitted that it is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage. The said bail application thus does not have any fresh and new ground and is rejected.

15. In so far as the bail of other two co-accused are concerned, the applicants are named in the FIR and have been assigned the specific role in the same. The deceased has received 10 injuries on his person out of which there are gun shot injuries. In so far as the other injuries are concerned, the case of the prosecution was that the deceased was initially stopped and thrown on the ground and was then fired upon. The injuries thus corroborate with the prosecution story. The trial is at an advanced stage. Appreciating the statements of the witnesses and giving a finding about the 6 BAIL No. 41170 of 2021 same in an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not in the interest of justice. There is also recovery of country made pistol on the pointing out of accused Israr. The case of co-accused who have been granted bail stands on different footing as that of the applicants.

16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail, hence, all the bail applications are, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad