State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the first informant, Shri S.D. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.246 of 2021, under Sections 147,148, 149, 452, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that initially, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicant during investigation and he was not named in the charge sheet. It is also submitted that an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of evidence of two witnesses before the learned trial Court, which was rejected and against that rejection order, the first informant moved this Court in revision and this Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the learned trial Court summoned the applicant to face trial for offences under Section 307 IPC and other sections of IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant moved this Court by filing criminal revision against the said order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and this Court passed an interim order that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant during pendency of that criminal revision. Finally, the said criminal revision has been dismissed on 01.04.2025 and thereafter, the applicant moved before the learned trial Court for anticipatory bail, which has been rejected and now the applicant has moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not 2 NABAIL No. 3741 of 2025 misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant has threatened him after the present case and he keeps threatening the counsel for the first informant also and in this regard, four cases subsequent to the present case has been filed against the applicant. It is further submitted that as per first information report, it was the applicant, who is the main assailant and he opened fired on the chest of the first informant, as a result of which, the first informant received several injuries of firearm on his chest.

5. Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

6. In reply, learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the statement of the doctor, the injuries sustained by the first informant are of pellets and are simple in nature and since there is enmity between the first informant and the applicant, four subsequent cases have been filed against the applicant under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC.

7. The applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that initially, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicant during investigation and he was not named in the charge sheet. It is also submitted that an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of evidence of two witnesses before the learned trial Court, which was rejected and against that rejection order, the first informant moved this Court in revision and this Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the learned trial Court summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 307 IPC and another sections of IPC. The applicant challenged that order before this Court in revision and the revision has finally been dismissed. The fact remains that there is no investigation pending and the applicant has to face trial as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 3 NABAIL No. 3741 of 2025

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shanu Warsi @ Mashkoor Warsi involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 9, 2025 RKM (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the first informant, Shri S.D. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.246 of 2021, under Sections 147,148, 149, 452, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that initially, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicant during investigation and he was not named in the charge sheet. It is also submitted that an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of evidence of two witnesses before the learned trial Court, which was rejected and against that rejection order, the first informant moved this Court in revision and this Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the learned trial Court summoned the applicant to face trial for offences under Section 307 IPC and other sections of IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant moved this Court by filing criminal revision against the said order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and this Court passed an interim order that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant during pendency of that criminal revision. Finally, the said criminal revision has been dismissed on 01.04.2025 and thereafter, the applicant moved before the learned trial Court for anticipatory bail, which has been rejected and now the applicant has moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not 2 NABAIL No. 3741 of 2025 misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant has threatened him after the present case and he keeps threatening the counsel for the first informant also and in this regard, four cases subsequent to the present case has been filed against the applicant. It is further submitted that as per first information report, it was the applicant, who is the main assailant and he opened fired on the chest of the first informant, as a result of which, the first informant received several injuries of firearm on his chest.

5. Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

6. In reply, learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the statement of the doctor, the injuries sustained by the first informant are of pellets and are simple in nature and since there is enmity between the first informant and the applicant, four subsequent cases have been filed against the applicant under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC.

7. The applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that initially, the Investigating Officer exonerated the applicant during investigation and he was not named in the charge sheet. It is also submitted that an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of evidence of two witnesses before the learned trial Court, which was rejected and against that rejection order, the first informant moved this Court in revision and this Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the learned trial Court summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 307 IPC and another sections of IPC. The applicant challenged that order before this Court in revision and the revision has finally been dismissed. The fact remains that there is no investigation pending and the applicant has to face trial as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

9. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 3 NABAIL No. 3741 of 2025

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shanu Warsi @ Mashkoor Warsi involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 9, 2025 RKM (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad