High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) B.N.S. and Section 2(b)(i)/3 of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Surauli, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to murder of the son of the informant but surprisingly when on same day her statement was recorded then she disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused and this fact shows that without any evidence during investigation informant implicated the applicant in the present matter along with others.

4. He further submits, on 09.11.2024 i.e. after two days an application was moved by the father of the deceased and according to the application three persons informed him that applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased and however when the statements of these witnesses were recorded then they also disclosed the name of applicant but surprisingly from their statements it could not be reflected that they were the eye witnesses.

5. He further submits, actually there is no eye witness account and only due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually co-accused Ashish Pandey lodged a FIR of murder against the deceased in which applicant was one of the witness and only due to this reason after the death of the deceased, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, this fact is even evident from the statement of Amit Singh, which has been annexed at page-77 of the paper-book.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but in two cases he has been made accused after the arrest in the present matter and previous two cases relate to minor offences and entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, according to the prosecution witnesses, applicant along with two others by causing firearm injuries committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that from the statement of any witness, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the real incident of alleged murder.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that however nobody was named in the FIR but on the same day when statement of the informant was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and others.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Ashish Pandey earlier lodged a FIR against the deceased in which applicant was one of the witness. They further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024.

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

13. However, FIR of the preset case was lodged against unknown persons but surprisingly when on the same day, statement of the informant was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and others and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually applicant has been made accused on the basis of false allegation due to previous enmity by the informant cannot be ruled out at this stage considering the the fact that deceased was accused in a case of murder in which applicant was one of the witness.

14. Further, however, as per allegation three witnesses stated that applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased but from their statements it could not be reflected that they were eye witnesses.

15. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but he is having previous criminal history of two cases and both the cases relate to minor offences.

16. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Anurag Gupta 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 12.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) B.N.S. and Section 2(b)(i)/3 of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Surauli, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to murder of the son of the informant but surprisingly when on same day her statement was recorded then she disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused and this fact shows that without any evidence during investigation informant implicated the applicant in the present matter along with others.

4. He further submits, on 09.11.2024 i.e. after two days an application was moved by the father of the deceased and according to the application three persons informed him that applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased and however when the statements of these witnesses were recorded then they also disclosed the name of applicant but surprisingly from their statements it could not be reflected that they were the eye witnesses.

5. He further submits, actually there is no eye witness account and only due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits, actually co-accused Ashish Pandey lodged a FIR of murder against the deceased in which applicant was one of the witness and only due to this reason after the death of the deceased, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, this fact is even evident from the statement of Amit Singh, which has been annexed at page-77 of the paper-book.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but in two cases he has been made accused after the arrest in the present matter and previous two cases relate to minor offences and entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, according to the prosecution witnesses, applicant along with two others by causing firearm injuries committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that from the statement of any witness, it could not be reflected that they witnessed the real incident of alleged murder.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that however nobody was named in the FIR but on the same day when statement of the informant was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and others.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Ashish Pandey earlier lodged a FIR against the deceased in which applicant was one of the witness. They further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024.

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

13. However, FIR of the preset case was lodged against unknown persons but surprisingly when on the same day, statement of the informant was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and others and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually applicant has been made accused on the basis of false allegation due to previous enmity by the informant cannot be ruled out at this stage considering the the fact that deceased was accused in a case of murder in which applicant was one of the witness.

14. Further, however, as per allegation three witnesses stated that applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased but from their statements it could not be reflected that they were eye witnesses.

15. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but he is having previous criminal history of two cases and both the cases relate to minor offences.

16. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

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

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

19. Let the applicant - Anurag Gupta 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 12.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad