High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ashish Dwivedi Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 800 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 103(1), 49, 54, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.12.2024 against the applicant and 12 others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 2.12.2024 at about 2 to 3 p.m. in the afternoon, applicant and other accused persons started making assault upon the son of the informant and thereafter on the exhortation of co- accused Swapnil, co-accused Arvind Verma caused fire arm injury to him due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR but as per FIR co-accused Arvind Verma caused fire arm injury to the deceased.

5. He further submitted that even when the statement of the informant was recorded then also he attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to co-accused Arvind Verma.

6. He further submitted that however, when the statements of some other eye-witnesses were recorded during investigation then they changed the prosecution version and stated that however, initially co-accused Arvind Verma opened fire upon the deceased but he anyhow escaped and thereafter co-accused Prince Rajput caused fire arm injury to him.

7. He further submitted that even from the statements of other eye witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any fire arm injury to the deceased.

8. He further submitted that however post mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained several injuries but he sustained only one fire arm injury which was fatal and other injuries were abraded contusion and this fact suggests that however, deceased was manhandled and assaulted by other accused but his murder was committed by either co-accused Arvind Verma or Prince Rajput and at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of his murder.

9. He further submitted that considering the fact that in the FIR of the present case, as many as 13 accused were named, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

10. He further submitted that even if the applicant was present at spot then also it cannot be said that he was also having intention to cause death of the deceased as from the FIR and the statements of the eye witnesses, it reflects during fight, co-accused caused fire arm injury to him.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that presence of the applicant cannot be denied at spot, at this stage and considering the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that he did not participate in the alleged crime but they could not dispute the fact that neither in the FIR nor in the statements of alleged eye witnesses, there is allegation that applicant caused any fire arm injury to the deceased and as per post mortem report deceased died due to fire arm injury and he sustained only one fire arm injury.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, applicant is named in the FIR but neither in the FIR nor in the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation any role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been attributed to him.

16. From the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been assigned by him to co-accused Arvind Verma however from the statements of the other eye-witnesses, it reflects that they attributed the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased to co-accused Prince Rajput.

17. Further, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained several ante mortem injuries but he sustained only one fire arm injury and as per autopsy surgeon, he died due to fire arm injury.

18. Further, however, from the statements of the eye-witnesses it reflects that applicant was present at spot but at this stage, merely on the basis of his presence, it cannot be said that he also involved in the commission of the murder of the deceased specially considering the fact that in the FIR, there are as many as 13 persons were made accused.

19. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Nishant Mishra, 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 17.4.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ashish Dwivedi Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 800 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 103(1), 49, 54, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.12.2024 against the applicant and 12 others and some unknown persons and according to the FIR on 2.12.2024 at about 2 to 3 p.m. in the afternoon, applicant and other accused persons started making assault upon the son of the informant and thereafter on the exhortation of co- accused Swapnil, co-accused Arvind Verma caused fire arm injury to him due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR but as per FIR co-accused Arvind Verma caused fire arm injury to the deceased.

5. He further submitted that even when the statement of the informant was recorded then also he attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to co-accused Arvind Verma.

6. He further submitted that however, when the statements of some other eye-witnesses were recorded during investigation then they changed the prosecution version and stated that however, initially co-accused Arvind Verma opened fire upon the deceased but he anyhow escaped and thereafter co-accused Prince Rajput caused fire arm injury to him.

7. He further submitted that even from the statements of other eye witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any fire arm injury to the deceased.

8. He further submitted that however post mortem report of the deceased suggests that he sustained several injuries but he sustained only one fire arm injury which was fatal and other injuries were abraded contusion and this fact suggests that however, deceased was manhandled and assaulted by other accused but his murder was committed by either co-accused Arvind Verma or Prince Rajput and at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of his murder.

9. He further submitted that considering the fact that in the FIR of the present case, as many as 13 accused were named, prima facie, it appears to be a case of over implication.

10. He further submitted that even if the applicant was present at spot then also it cannot be said that he was also having intention to cause death of the deceased as from the FIR and the statements of the eye witnesses, it reflects during fight, co-accused caused fire arm injury to him.

11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024.

12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that presence of the applicant cannot be denied at spot, at this stage and considering the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that he did not participate in the alleged crime but they could not dispute the fact that neither in the FIR nor in the statements of alleged eye witnesses, there is allegation that applicant caused any fire arm injury to the deceased and as per post mortem report deceased died due to fire arm injury and he sustained only one fire arm injury.

13. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

15. However, applicant is named in the FIR but neither in the FIR nor in the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation any role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been attributed to him.

16. From the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded during investigation, it reflects role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been assigned by him to co-accused Arvind Verma however from the statements of the other eye-witnesses, it reflects that they attributed the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased to co-accused Prince Rajput.

17. Further, however, post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained several ante mortem injuries but he sustained only one fire arm injury and as per autopsy surgeon, he died due to fire arm injury.

18. Further, however, from the statements of the eye-witnesses it reflects that applicant was present at spot but at this stage, merely on the basis of his presence, it cannot be said that he also involved in the commission of the murder of the deceased specially considering the fact that in the FIR, there are as many as 13 persons were made accused.

19. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Nishant Mishra, 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 17.4.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad