High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39972 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44805 of 2023 Applicant :- Yash @ Umang @ Katra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd.Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui,Shan Mohammad Ali Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. Mohd. Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui and Sri Shan Mohammad Ali,
Legal Reasoning
learned counsels for the first informant are not present. Ref : Criminal Misc. Short Term Bail / Parole Application No. 7 of 2025. 1. The present short term bail / Parole application dated 06.01.2025 has been filed on behalf of the applicant which is pending.
Legal Reasoning
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present short term bail / parole application has rendered infructuous and be dismissed as such. 3. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as infructuous. Order on bail application. 1. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Yash @ Umang @ Katra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.858 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 2. The facts of the case are that the first information report was lodged on 23.11.2022 at 23:53 hours under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. by Sarvar Ali for an incident reported to have taken place on 23.11.2022 at 15:30 hours against Yash (present applicant) and one unknown person alleging therein that on 23.11.2022 at 03:30 p.m., he had gone to pick his son Shamik aged about 18 years, a student of first year B.B.A. of Krishna College, Bijnor. Shamik was standing on the other side of the road at some distance from the college, wherein due to old enmity, on a motorcycle Yash and one unknown person came and surrounded Shamik. Shamik tried to run on which Yash on being exhorted by his companion to murder him, fired upon him by a country made pistol which hit on his chest and he died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by him, Sarfaraz, Sayeed Ahmad and other persons and even by Buniyad Ali. He has a belief that apart from the said two persons there are other persons also involved in the murder of his son. His report be lodged and action be taken. 3. The post mortem examination of the deceased Shamik was conducted on 23.11.2022 and the doctor found four injuries in it being an entry wound of firearm on the chest, a firearm exit wound, an abrasion on left knee front and an abrasion on front of right knee. The cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem firearm injury. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued as under :- (i) The incident in the present matter is said to have taken place at 3:30 P.M. but the first information report has been lodged at 11:53 P.M., which is after an explained delay of 9:00 hours. (ii) The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted on the basis of an information received at police station Kotwali Nagar from the District Hospital Bijnor through the Ward Boy. (iii) At the time of inquest, the family members of the deceased were missing, despite the fact that the first informant claims himself to be the person, who had gone to bring the deceased back and claims to be an eye witness. Even the other alleged eye witnesses, who are family members of the deceased are also not present. (iv) The inquest report dated 23.11.2022 encloses with it as an enclosure no. 2 a copy of a report of one page which would go to show that the report of the present matter was already lodged and a conclusion should drawn that the present F.I.R. is anti timed. (v) The site plan of the incident although shows the place of occurrence but does not anywhere disclose as to where the alleged informant claiming himself to be an eye witness and other alleged eye witnesses were present from where they have witnessed the incident. (vi) The alleged eye witness Buniyad Ali and Sayeed Ahmad whose statements are on at page nos. 54 and 55 of the paper book, have tried to improve the prosecution version by stating a different scene at the place of incident and have also introduced the fact that the injured tried to run inside the college, who was chased by the applicant. (vii) A C.C.T.V. footage was collected by the Investigating Officer and the description of the same has been entered in C.D. No. 6 dated 05.12.2022 of the case diary which is annexure-8 to the affidavit in which the name of the applicant and the fact that he shot the deceased is missing and further the movement at the place of occurrence is again different in which the deceased was seen to be talking with a girl but the said girl who would have been a star witness has not been identified and neither made a witness in the present matter. (viii) The police has shown the recovery of a country made pistol on the pointing out of the applicant but the same has not been sent for any ballistic examination and thus there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon in the present matter. (ix) The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in paragraph 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.11.2022 as stated in paragraph 37 of the affidavit. (x) The applicant be ordered to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and argued as under :- (i) The present case is a case of day light murder in which the applicant is named as an accused and has been assigned the role of shooting upon the deceased. (ii) The post mortem examination report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution version wherein the cause of death has been opined to be due to fire arm injury. (iii) The presence of the family members and relatives of the deceased was there at the time of inquest which is mentioned in the inquest itself that when the officer conducing inquest reached there he found them in a state of grief and they were consoled and then the inquest was conducted. (iv) The copy of the report which is enclosure no. 2 to the inquest of one page is nothing else but G.D. No. 81 transcribed at 17:45 hours, which is referred to in the inquest itself subsequent to which the police proceeded for conducting the inquest. (v) An eye witness Sarfaraz Ahmad, who is also named in the F.I.R. as an eye witness is one of the witnesses of inquest. (vi) The presence of the family members of the deceased is specifically noted in the inquest and it is not a case that they had disappeared. (vii) The C.C.T.V. footage although has been recovered by the Investigating agency but the same is not in full. (viii) The manner of assault as per prosecution corroborates with the medical evidence. (ix) The prayer for bail be rejected. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and has been assigned the role of shooting upon the deceased. The incident has taken place in daylight. The medical evidence corroborates with the prosecution story. The presence of the first informant at the place of incident cannot in any manner be said to be doubtful. Even the presence of other eye witnesses cannot be said to be doubtful, since they may be present in an around the place of occurrence. The inquest on the body of the deceased was although conducted on the information sent by the hospital but the inquest memo states that the family members and relatives of the deceased are present there who are grief stricken and they were consoled and then the proceeding of inquest was done. The eye witnesses, namely, Buniyad Ali and Sayeed Ahmad also named the applicant and assigned him the role of shooting. Sarfaraz Ahmad, who is named as an eye witness of the incident in the F.I.R. is also a witness of the inquest who also names the applicant and assigns him the specific role of shooting upon the deceased. Insofar as the C.C.T.V. footage is concerned, the same cannot in any manner over-ride the ocular testimony. No ground for bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad