High Court

Legal Reasoning

Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12553 of 2025 Applicant :- Nazir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diksha Verma,G.A.,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Diksha Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State Respondent and perused the material on records. 2. The bail application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of applicant, Rihan has been filed seeking enlargement of bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 121(2), 132, 223(B), 117 (2) BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal. The bail application of the applicant in the court below was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, vide order dated 10.03.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number with ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the genesis of the FIR giving rise to the present case crime number is a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 182 of 2024 filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chandausi, District Sambhal, in which the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide his order dated 19.11.2024 ordered for a survey to be carried out of the Jama Masjid and a report be submitted by 29.11.2024. In compliance of the said order, the District as also the police administration geared up to facilitate the survey and the same was carried out between 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Due to lack of adequate light in the premises, presence of several persons inside the premises and mob outside the premises the survey could not be carried out to the satisfaction of the Court Commissioner and a request was made by the Court Commissioner for continuation of the survey on the next day also. The remaining survey was scheduled for 24.11.2024 from 7:00 a.m. onwards. On 24.11.2024 several miscreants gathered on the spot to protest the survey. The protest took a violent turn and several persons assembled unlawfully at different places to thwart the survey process by preventing the public servant and police personnel from discharging their public duties and also indulging in assault, stone pelting as well as firing resulting in injuries to police personal and damage to their vehicles. A situation of anarchy and panic in the society was created. The FIR giving rise to the Case Crime No. 304 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 121(2), 132, 223(B), 117 (2) of BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, was lodged against 6 named persons and 150-200 unknown persons. 67 accused persons were also identified from the CCTV footage, videos and photographs of the occurrence taken by mobile phones, from Drones of the videographers present along with the survey team. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR, nothing incriminating was found from the possession of the applicant or his pointing out. The applicant was not put up for test identification parade nor was identified from the CCTV, mobile and Drone video footage. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the accused persons before the police while in custody. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and has also been implicated in Case Crime Nos. 333 of 2024, 334 of 2024, and 337 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal which arise from the same alleged occurrence dated 24.11.2024, with a view to enhance the number of cases against the applicant. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no credible evidence or material against the applicant except the alleged confessional statement of the co- accused persons which is not admissible against the applicant in view of Section 23 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It is submitted that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the investigation. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. Sri Roopak Chaubey in opposition to the bail plea submits that the applicant cannot be assumed to be innocent at the pre trial stage and as such does not deserve any interference. The applicant along with co-accused persons was involved in unlawful activities of stone pelting upon police personnel, abusing them and also snatching their weapons. The accused persons tried to snatch the service pistol of the first informant i.e. Sub Inspector Sanjeev Kumar of P.S Kotwali Sambhal and succeeded in looting the magazines containing 10 rounds of 9 mm cartridges, two bags of tear smoke shells containing 29 tear smoke shells from police constable Kamal Kumar. Bag of Constable Pankaj Kumar was also looted by the accused persons containing 25 blank cartridges and 25 rubber bullets. A bag of ammunition containing 15 rounds of 12 bore cartridges was also looted from constable Rajpal Singh. 5 police personnel received injuries due to assault made by the accused persons including the applicant. Stolen ammunition was recovered from the accused persons during investigation. The applicant has been identified in the CCTV Footage and incriminating articles have also been recovered from his possession. It is thus prayed that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail and the bail application warrants dismissal. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that though the applicant is not named in the FIR giving rise to the present case crime number, recovery of incriminating material having been made from the applicant, the applicant having been identified from the CCTV footage taken by the Police Personnel, the applicant being involved in stone pelting and arson, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. 7. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad