State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State as well Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, at the instance of applicant, Pushpendra Singh, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 190, 191 (2), 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, Police Station Shivkuti, District Nagar (Commissionerate), Prayagraj 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 Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Prayagraj vide order dated 1.4.2025 and the applicant is confined in jail since

16.3.2024 (whereas in Para No. 31 of the affidavit, date of arrest mentioned as 16.3.2025).

3. Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajrshi Gupta and Shri Rijwan Ahmad, learned counsels for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The 2 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged on

18.11.2024 at 11:35 hrs. in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on 17.11.2024 at 22:00 hrs. with unexplained delay of 13 hours and 35 minutes nominating 2 named and 4-5 unknown persons. The applicant is not named in the FIR, which alleges that the informant along with his brother Akhilesh Shukla @ Guddu and one Poni Yadav were sitting at Kailashpuri, Amitabh Bachan Pullia near temple when Nikhil Singh along with 4-5 unknown persons came, fired from their rifle and pistol as a result of previously hatched conspiracy started assaulting his brother Akhilesh Shukla by iron rod and butt of rifle and when the brother fell to the ground, he was assaulted on his head by iron rod multiple times causing crush injuries. The informant could not intervene as the assailants were armed with deadly weapon. The injured brother Akhilesh was taken to the ICU of Acura Hospital, Civil Lines for treatment. Thereafter, the brother of the informant, namely, Devesh Shukla was threatened on his mobile that his brother has been done with and next it his number.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the FIR does not nominate the applicant. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS also does not nominate the applicant. The eye witness Poni Yadav in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has also not nominated the applicant. Like wise, the eye witness Prakash son of Dinesh Mistri has also not named the applicant. It is next submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced from the confessional statement of co-accused Durgesh, who was arrested on 22.11.2024 on the basis of information from an informer. It is submitted that the said statement being that of a co-accused has no evidentiary value and cannot be looked into at this stage. It is also submitted that the applicant has been nominated in the second statement of the first informant recorded on 14.12.2024 after nearly 26 days of the alleged incident. It is also argued that the statement of the other brother of the informant, namely, Devesh Shukla has also nominated the applicant, however, he is not an eye witness of the incident. The applicant is previously known to the complainant party and yet the FIR lodged after inordinate unexplained delay of 13 days does not nominate the applicant. The statements of Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Mani Shukla, who claim themselves to be chance witnesses also do not nominate the applicant and nominate named accused Nikhil Kant for 3 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 exhortation and striking the deceased on the head to Atul Pratap Singh. Another chance witness Akhilesh Tiwari has also deposed on the same lines and has not nominated the applicant. It is also argued that a person cannot be implicated merely on the basis of his mobile location being found within the coverage of a mobile tower near the place of occurrence in the absence of any corroborating evidence. It is also argued that the recovery of an iron rod from the joint pointing out of the applicant and co- accused Devendra Pratap Singh is a planted one. It is argued that the prosecution has completely failed to show the exact role of the applicant in the alleged commission of the crime. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate the investigation as well as the trial and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, prayer for bail has been made.

5. Per contra, learned AGA as also Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, oppose the bail plea by submitting that sufficient material has been collected by the investigating officer to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that 14.4.2025 was the date fixed for framing of charges. On

15.4.2025, discharge application was moved by the accused persons and thereafter adjournments after adjournments was being taken before the learned Trial Court and the accused persons were threatening the first informant which compelled the first informant to approach Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj seeking protection. It is argued that the applicant along with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of the brother of the informant. It is further submitted that the medical/injury reports pertaining to the deceased carried out in Acura Critical Care Hospital has not been made part of the case diary. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application of the applicant warrants rejection.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the applicant was not nominated in the FIR. His name was surfaced from the confessional statement of the co-accused Durgesh arrested on 22.11.2024 and from the second statement of the informant recorded on 14.12.2024, after 26 days of the alleged incident. The FIR itself has been lodged after inordinate delay of 13 days. The records reveal that charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused 4 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 Devendra Pratap Singh is yet to be filed though the same has been filed against the other co-accused and investigation against the applicant and co-accused Devendra Pratap Singh is still going on. The allegation against the applicant that he is preventing/delaying the framing of charges appears to be ill founded.

7. Considering all the above, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the accused-applicant, Pushpendra Singh, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 25, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) RAVI PRAKASH RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State as well Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, at the instance of applicant, Pushpendra Singh, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 190, 191 (2), 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, Police Station Shivkuti, District Nagar (Commissionerate), Prayagraj 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 Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Prayagraj vide order dated 1.4.2025 and the applicant is confined in jail since

16.3.2024 (whereas in Para No. 31 of the affidavit, date of arrest mentioned as 16.3.2025).

3. Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajrshi Gupta and Shri Rijwan Ahmad, learned counsels for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The 2 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged on

18.11.2024 at 11:35 hrs. in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on 17.11.2024 at 22:00 hrs. with unexplained delay of 13 hours and 35 minutes nominating 2 named and 4-5 unknown persons. The applicant is not named in the FIR, which alleges that the informant along with his brother Akhilesh Shukla @ Guddu and one Poni Yadav were sitting at Kailashpuri, Amitabh Bachan Pullia near temple when Nikhil Singh along with 4-5 unknown persons came, fired from their rifle and pistol as a result of previously hatched conspiracy started assaulting his brother Akhilesh Shukla by iron rod and butt of rifle and when the brother fell to the ground, he was assaulted on his head by iron rod multiple times causing crush injuries. The informant could not intervene as the assailants were armed with deadly weapon. The injured brother Akhilesh was taken to the ICU of Acura Hospital, Civil Lines for treatment. Thereafter, the brother of the informant, namely, Devesh Shukla was threatened on his mobile that his brother has been done with and next it his number.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the FIR does not nominate the applicant. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS also does not nominate the applicant. The eye witness Poni Yadav in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has also not nominated the applicant. Like wise, the eye witness Prakash son of Dinesh Mistri has also not named the applicant. It is next submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced from the confessional statement of co-accused Durgesh, who was arrested on 22.11.2024 on the basis of information from an informer. It is submitted that the said statement being that of a co-accused has no evidentiary value and cannot be looked into at this stage. It is also submitted that the applicant has been nominated in the second statement of the first informant recorded on 14.12.2024 after nearly 26 days of the alleged incident. It is also argued that the statement of the other brother of the informant, namely, Devesh Shukla has also nominated the applicant, however, he is not an eye witness of the incident. The applicant is previously known to the complainant party and yet the FIR lodged after inordinate unexplained delay of 13 days does not nominate the applicant. The statements of Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Mani Shukla, who claim themselves to be chance witnesses also do not nominate the applicant and nominate named accused Nikhil Kant for 3 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 exhortation and striking the deceased on the head to Atul Pratap Singh. Another chance witness Akhilesh Tiwari has also deposed on the same lines and has not nominated the applicant. It is also argued that a person cannot be implicated merely on the basis of his mobile location being found within the coverage of a mobile tower near the place of occurrence in the absence of any corroborating evidence. It is also argued that the recovery of an iron rod from the joint pointing out of the applicant and co- accused Devendra Pratap Singh is a planted one. It is argued that the prosecution has completely failed to show the exact role of the applicant in the alleged commission of the crime. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate the investigation as well as the trial and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, prayer for bail has been made.

5. Per contra, learned AGA as also Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, oppose the bail plea by submitting that sufficient material has been collected by the investigating officer to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that 14.4.2025 was the date fixed for framing of charges. On

15.4.2025, discharge application was moved by the accused persons and thereafter adjournments after adjournments was being taken before the learned Trial Court and the accused persons were threatening the first informant which compelled the first informant to approach Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj seeking protection. It is argued that the applicant along with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of the brother of the informant. It is further submitted that the medical/injury reports pertaining to the deceased carried out in Acura Critical Care Hospital has not been made part of the case diary. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application of the applicant warrants rejection.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the applicant was not nominated in the FIR. His name was surfaced from the confessional statement of the co-accused Durgesh arrested on 22.11.2024 and from the second statement of the informant recorded on 14.12.2024, after 26 days of the alleged incident. The FIR itself has been lodged after inordinate delay of 13 days. The records reveal that charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused 4 BAIL No. 12061 of 2025 Devendra Pratap Singh is yet to be filed though the same has been filed against the other co-accused and investigation against the applicant and co-accused Devendra Pratap Singh is still going on. The allegation against the applicant that he is preventing/delaying the framing of charges appears to be ill founded.

7. Considering all the above, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the accused-applicant, Pushpendra Singh, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 25, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) RAVI PRAKASH RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad