High Court · 2025

2. Heard Ms. Sarita Singh and Shri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 51 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Sardhana, District- Meerut, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. The first and second bail applications of applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 18.05.2023 & 05.12.2024.

4. According to prosecution version, in the year 2015 some persons have committed murder of brother of informant and that case was pending before the Court. It was alleged that on

29.01.2022, applicant and other co-accused persons, in order to pressurize the informant for compromise in the said earlier case, trespassed into the house of the informant and threatened and assaulted them. Co-accused Munazir Ali, Hasan Mehandi and Ali Ahmad caught Humayun and co-accused Ajmal and Chunnu overpowered the informant and that applicant / accused Raja Mehandi @ Gola has fired bullet at the deceased Humayun, resultantly, he sustained bullet injuries. He was taken to hospital and during treatment he succumbed to injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The First Information Report of this case is anti-time. Statement of one Shami was referred and it was submitted that the possibility that the deceased has committed suicide by firing bullet at himself cannot be ruled out. As per statement of said Shami, on the night of 28.01.2022 at 10.00 P.M. when after hearing the sound of firing he came out, he saw that mother of deceased was weeping saying that why he has done so and she would have arranged his marriage with Rukaiya. The spot of incident is doubtful and the prosecution version that alleged incident took place inside the house is not supported by the site-plan of the spot. As per statement of Investigating Officer, he has prepared a video of the statement of deceased but the same was mistakenly got deleted by him and thus, the version regarding alleged new video introduced by the prosecution is doubtful. The deceased did not make any statement to the concerned doctor. No certificate under Section 65- B of Evidence Act has been produced regarding said video. Applicant has no motive to commit murder of deceased.

6. It is further submitted that second bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 and now statements of all the material witnesses have been recorded and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. It was pointed out that PW-1/ informant- Razi Mohd. has not made any allegation against the applicant and he has not supported prosecution version and turned hostile. PW- 2 Rashid Jaidi has made allegations against the applicant but there are contradictions in his statements. Another eye-witness PW- 3- Naiyyar Abbas and PW- 4 Naim Abbas have also not supported prosecution version and turned hostile. PW-5 Tanjeem Raza is a formal witness. It was submitted that informant as well as two eye-witnesses have not supported prosecution version thus, the involvement of applicant in the incident is doubtful. It is further submitted that mother of applicant is suffering from 'cancer' for last two years and her condition is very serious and that applicant is the only person take care of her. The father of applicant is bed-ridden due to fracture in backbone. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that presence of applicant is required to take care of his mother. The criminal history shown against the applicant has duly been explained. It was pointed out that in two cases, applicant has already been acquitted and in other cases applicant is on bail. Now the applicant in jail since 29.01.2022 and thus, he has already undergone detention of more than two and a half years and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long period. As material witnesses have already been examined, thus there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that in case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate during the trial.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that role of firing at deceased has been attributed to the applicant and that there is eye-witness account of the incident. That version is also supported by the statement of deceased, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer in a video. There is criminal history of ten cases against the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant. However, it could not be disputed that during trial, informant/ PW-1 as well as PW- 3 and PW- 4 have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile.

8. Perusal of record shows that as per prosecution version, role of causing firearm injury to deceased has been attributed to the applicant. It was shown that during trial, informant/ PW- 1 as well as eye-witness PW-3 and PW- 4 have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. Criminal history of applicant has duly been explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2022 and trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Considering the cumulative effect of all facts and circumstances of the matter, period of detention, stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the third bail application is hereby allowed.

9. Let the applicant-accused - Raja Mehndi @ Gola involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant-accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rama Kant RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Sarita Singh and Shri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 51 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Sardhana, District- Meerut, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. The first and second bail applications of applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 18.05.2023 & 05.12.2024.

4. According to prosecution version, in the year 2015 some persons have committed murder of brother of informant and that case was pending before the Court. It was alleged that on

29.01.2022, applicant and other co-accused persons, in order to pressurize the informant for compromise in the said earlier case, trespassed into the house of the informant and threatened and assaulted them. Co-accused Munazir Ali, Hasan Mehandi and Ali Ahmad caught Humayun and co-accused Ajmal and Chunnu overpowered the informant and that applicant / accused Raja Mehandi @ Gola has fired bullet at the deceased Humayun, resultantly, he sustained bullet injuries. He was taken to hospital and during treatment he succumbed to injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The First Information Report of this case is anti-time. Statement of one Shami was referred and it was submitted that the possibility that the deceased has committed suicide by firing bullet at himself cannot be ruled out. As per statement of said Shami, on the night of 28.01.2022 at 10.00 P.M. when after hearing the sound of firing he came out, he saw that mother of deceased was weeping saying that why he has done so and she would have arranged his marriage with Rukaiya. The spot of incident is doubtful and the prosecution version that alleged incident took place inside the house is not supported by the site-plan of the spot. As per statement of Investigating Officer, he has prepared a video of the statement of deceased but the same was mistakenly got deleted by him and thus, the version regarding alleged new video introduced by the prosecution is doubtful. The deceased did not make any statement to the concerned doctor. No certificate under Section 65- B of Evidence Act has been produced regarding said video. Applicant has no motive to commit murder of deceased.

6. It is further submitted that second bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 and now statements of all the material witnesses have been recorded and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. It was pointed out that PW-1/ informant- Razi Mohd. has not made any allegation against the applicant and he has not supported prosecution version and turned hostile. PW- 2 Rashid Jaidi has made allegations against the applicant but there are contradictions in his statements. Another eye-witness PW- 3- Naiyyar Abbas and PW- 4 Naim Abbas have also not supported prosecution version and turned hostile. PW-5 Tanjeem Raza is a formal witness. It was submitted that informant as well as two eye-witnesses have not supported prosecution version thus, the involvement of applicant in the incident is doubtful. It is further submitted that mother of applicant is suffering from 'cancer' for last two years and her condition is very serious and that applicant is the only person take care of her. The father of applicant is bed-ridden due to fracture in backbone. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that presence of applicant is required to take care of his mother. The criminal history shown against the applicant has duly been explained. It was pointed out that in two cases, applicant has already been acquitted and in other cases applicant is on bail. Now the applicant in jail since 29.01.2022 and thus, he has already undergone detention of more than two and a half years and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long period. As material witnesses have already been examined, thus there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that in case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate during the trial.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that role of firing at deceased has been attributed to the applicant and that there is eye-witness account of the incident. That version is also supported by the statement of deceased, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer in a video. There is criminal history of ten cases against the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant. However, it could not be disputed that during trial, informant/ PW-1 as well as PW- 3 and PW- 4 have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile.

8. Perusal of record shows that as per prosecution version, role of causing firearm injury to deceased has been attributed to the applicant. It was shown that during trial, informant/ PW- 1 as well as eye-witness PW-3 and PW- 4 have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. Criminal history of applicant has duly been explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2022 and trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Considering the cumulative effect of all facts and circumstances of the matter, period of detention, stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the third bail application is hereby allowed.

9. Let the applicant-accused - Raja Mehndi @ Gola involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant-accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rama Kant RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad