High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Pisava, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.02.2025 at 00.10 hours and according to the FIR on 19.02.2025 at about 4.15 in the evening applicant and four others along with unknown persons opened fire and due to the fire opened by them brother of the informant Raju died and one Sundar sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, informant in the FIR disclosed the name of applicant and others and stated that they opened fire due to which his brother died and Sundar sustained injuries but when his statement was recorded during investigation, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, then he stated that unknown persons committed the murder of his brother Raju and he only made allegation of conspiracy against the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on wrong facts.

6. He further submits, during investigation when statement of injured Sundar was recorded, which has been annexed at page-71 of the paper-book then he categorically stated that co-accused Prashant, Jitesh and Harish caused firearm injury to the deceased and they also caused firearm injury to him and he did not even disclose the name of applicant and this fact again suggests that actually only due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submits, there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant either caused any injury to the deceased or to the injured.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.03.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. However, learned counsel for the informant submits, applicant was specifically named in the FIR, therefore, there was no occasion for the informant to retract from the version of the FIR and actually Investigating Officer of the case failed to properly conduct the investigation and he is dancing on the tune of the applicant side, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statements of the eye witnesses recorded during investigation and, therefore, considering the FIR of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

11. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and according to the FIR he along with others opened fire due to which one person died and person namely Sundar sustained injuries but when the statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation including informant and injured Sundar then they did not state that applicant caused any injury either to the deceased or the injured and from the statement of the informant it reflects, some unknown persons caused injury to the deceased and the injured and from the statement of injured it reflects, co-accused Prashant, Jitesh Sharma and Harish were the person who opened fire and due to the fire opened by them deceased died and he i.e. injured also sustained injuries.

12. Further, however, as per learned counsel for the informant Investigating Officer is not properly conducting the investigation and in this regard he also made a complaint to the higher police authorities but at this stage it cannot be said that investigation of the case is tainted one.

13. Further, even FIR of the present case has been lodged on 20.02.2025 at 00.10 hours i.e. after 08 hours from the time of incident.

14. Further, from the inquest report of the deceased, it reflects, it was conducted on 19.02.2025 at 17.18 hours on the information given by S.O. concerned and as per the information given by S.O. concerned some unknown persons after causing firearm injury committed the murder of the deceased and his dead body is lying in the field and from the inquest it reflects, one Harendra is also one of the inquest witness and Harendra is the brother of the deceased and the informant and prima facie this fact and above facts cast doubt on the prosecution story mentioned in the FIR.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.03.2025.

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

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

18. Let the applicant -Gaurav Kumar 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 :- 16.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Pisava, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 20.02.2025 at 00.10 hours and according to the FIR on 19.02.2025 at about 4.15 in the evening applicant and four others along with unknown persons opened fire and due to the fire opened by them brother of the informant Raju died and one Sundar sustained injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, informant in the FIR disclosed the name of applicant and others and stated that they opened fire due to which his brother died and Sundar sustained injuries but when his statement was recorded during investigation, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, then he stated that unknown persons committed the murder of his brother Raju and he only made allegation of conspiracy against the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that FIR is based on wrong facts.

6. He further submits, during investigation when statement of injured Sundar was recorded, which has been annexed at page-71 of the paper-book then he categorically stated that co-accused Prashant, Jitesh and Harish caused firearm injury to the deceased and they also caused firearm injury to him and he did not even disclose the name of applicant and this fact again suggests that actually only due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

7. He further submits, there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant either caused any injury to the deceased or to the injured.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.03.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. However, learned counsel for the informant submits, applicant was specifically named in the FIR, therefore, there was no occasion for the informant to retract from the version of the FIR and actually Investigating Officer of the case failed to properly conduct the investigation and he is dancing on the tune of the applicant side, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statements of the eye witnesses recorded during investigation and, therefore, considering the FIR of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

11. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and according to the FIR he along with others opened fire due to which one person died and person namely Sundar sustained injuries but when the statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation including informant and injured Sundar then they did not state that applicant caused any injury either to the deceased or the injured and from the statement of the informant it reflects, some unknown persons caused injury to the deceased and the injured and from the statement of injured it reflects, co-accused Prashant, Jitesh Sharma and Harish were the person who opened fire and due to the fire opened by them deceased died and he i.e. injured also sustained injuries.

12. Further, however, as per learned counsel for the informant Investigating Officer is not properly conducting the investigation and in this regard he also made a complaint to the higher police authorities but at this stage it cannot be said that investigation of the case is tainted one.

13. Further, even FIR of the present case has been lodged on 20.02.2025 at 00.10 hours i.e. after 08 hours from the time of incident.

14. Further, from the inquest report of the deceased, it reflects, it was conducted on 19.02.2025 at 17.18 hours on the information given by S.O. concerned and as per the information given by S.O. concerned some unknown persons after causing firearm injury committed the murder of the deceased and his dead body is lying in the field and from the inquest it reflects, one Harendra is also one of the inquest witness and Harendra is the brother of the deceased and the informant and prima facie this fact and above facts cast doubt on the prosecution story mentioned in the FIR.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 06.03.2025.

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

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

18. Let the applicant -Gaurav Kumar 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 :- 16.5.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad