State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 & 307 of IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:-

4. The applicant along with co-accused persons, namely, Aurangzeb, Aabaad, Arbaaz and Shahanbaz is stated to have forced and threatened the informant to settle the matter of murder case pending between the parties in which the family members of the applicant were accused.

5. On 12.05.2024 at about 04:30 PM, when the informant and his family members were returning from Meerut District Court, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have threatened and caused injuries to them by lathi-danda, which they were carrying. Subsequently, the accused persons are even stated to have fired at them, causing injuries to three persons in all. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:- 2 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025

6. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The injury reports of the injured persons indicate that the injuries were simple in nature. None of the injuries were found grievous and were caused by hard and blunt object.

8. Much reliance has been placed on the statements of the injured persons whereby the injured persons have been reduced from three to two as one person has not sustained any injury whatsoever.

9. Injuries were found only on the body of injured, Saheba and Rehan and both have categorically alleged that it was the applicant, who had fired at them, although there was no firearm injury sustained by them.

10. The statement of the injured persons categorically indicate that particular allegations have been made against the co-accused Aurangzeb, who is named in the instant FIR and also arrayed as an accused in the murder case. The said co-accused Aurangzeb has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.9.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 30351 of 2025. The case of the applicant is at a better footing to the case of co-accused Aurangzeb, as such, he is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

11. It is also informed that the applicant was earlier on granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 38998 of 2024. The informant challenged the said bail order by filing a S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. The said S.L.P. No. 18256 of 2024 was allowed and the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by a speaking order of the Supreme Court dated 27.01.2025 and it was mentioned in paras- 6 & 7 of the order as follows: "6. An FIR No. 179/2024 registered at PS Partapur, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh subsequently records that it was Accused-Respondent No. 2, who was present on the spot and Arbaz had attacked Rihan and Sayma with a knife resulting into serious injuries.

7. We have noticed that the High Court in a case of a serious offence had granted bail to the respondent, who was in custody for a period of just one month. The High Court 3 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025 also failed to take notice of the findings returned by the Trial Court, dismissing the bail application."

12. It is argued that the wrong facts were placed before the Supreme Court as it has been mentioned that the applicant and other co-accused persons had attacked the informant and other family members resulting in serious injuries to them. The said fact stands falsified from the statements of the injured persons, Saheba and Rehan, whereby the applicant is stated to have fired at them.

13. It is true that subsequent to the said order passed in S.L.P. No. 18256 of 2024, a review petition filed by the appellant was rejected but the applicant surrendered before the court and he is incarcerated for more than six months.

14. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained.

15. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:-

16. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that it is not a normal case. The truth is that the murder of one of the family members of the informant was caused earlier on and the family members of the applicant were accused in it. Although, it is true that the applicant was not arrayed as an accused in the said FIR lodged u/s 302 IPC but he along with other co-accused persons had committed the present offence.

17. Subsequent to the passing of the bail cancellation order of the applicant, he has not surrendered, as such, he evaded the process of the court and even proceedings of 82 Cr.P.C. were undertaken and non-bailable warrant was issued against him. After much efforts of the informant, the applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 10.03.2025 i.e. after a delay of about 42 days from the date of passing of the bail cancellation order, as such, he is not entitled for bail as he has misused the process of court and has not complied with the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.01.2025. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:-

18. The bail application has also been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. 4 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025 CONCLUSION:-

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and considering the delay of seven hours in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of the incident as no firearm injury was sustained by the injured as the applicant was assigned the role of firing and also taking into consideration the fact that the main accused person Aurangzeb has been enlarged on bail, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Jeeshan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 22, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 & 307 of IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:-

4. The applicant along with co-accused persons, namely, Aurangzeb, Aabaad, Arbaaz and Shahanbaz is stated to have forced and threatened the informant to settle the matter of murder case pending between the parties in which the family members of the applicant were accused.

5. On 12.05.2024 at about 04:30 PM, when the informant and his family members were returning from Meerut District Court, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have threatened and caused injuries to them by lathi-danda, which they were carrying. Subsequently, the accused persons are even stated to have fired at them, causing injuries to three persons in all. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:- 2 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025

6. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

7. The injury reports of the injured persons indicate that the injuries were simple in nature. None of the injuries were found grievous and were caused by hard and blunt object.

8. Much reliance has been placed on the statements of the injured persons whereby the injured persons have been reduced from three to two as one person has not sustained any injury whatsoever.

9. Injuries were found only on the body of injured, Saheba and Rehan and both have categorically alleged that it was the applicant, who had fired at them, although there was no firearm injury sustained by them.

10. The statement of the injured persons categorically indicate that particular allegations have been made against the co-accused Aurangzeb, who is named in the instant FIR and also arrayed as an accused in the murder case. The said co-accused Aurangzeb has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.9.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 30351 of 2025. The case of the applicant is at a better footing to the case of co-accused Aurangzeb, as such, he is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

11. It is also informed that the applicant was earlier on granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 38998 of 2024. The informant challenged the said bail order by filing a S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. The said S.L.P. No. 18256 of 2024 was allowed and the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by a speaking order of the Supreme Court dated 27.01.2025 and it was mentioned in paras- 6 & 7 of the order as follows: "6. An FIR No. 179/2024 registered at PS Partapur, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh subsequently records that it was Accused-Respondent No. 2, who was present on the spot and Arbaz had attacked Rihan and Sayma with a knife resulting into serious injuries.

7. We have noticed that the High Court in a case of a serious offence had granted bail to the respondent, who was in custody for a period of just one month. The High Court 3 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025 also failed to take notice of the findings returned by the Trial Court, dismissing the bail application."

12. It is argued that the wrong facts were placed before the Supreme Court as it has been mentioned that the applicant and other co-accused persons had attacked the informant and other family members resulting in serious injuries to them. The said fact stands falsified from the statements of the injured persons, Saheba and Rehan, whereby the applicant is stated to have fired at them.

13. It is true that subsequent to the said order passed in S.L.P. No. 18256 of 2024, a review petition filed by the appellant was rejected but the applicant surrendered before the court and he is incarcerated for more than six months.

14. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained.

15. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:-

16. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that it is not a normal case. The truth is that the murder of one of the family members of the informant was caused earlier on and the family members of the applicant were accused in it. Although, it is true that the applicant was not arrayed as an accused in the said FIR lodged u/s 302 IPC but he along with other co-accused persons had committed the present offence.

17. Subsequent to the passing of the bail cancellation order of the applicant, he has not surrendered, as such, he evaded the process of the court and even proceedings of 82 Cr.P.C. were undertaken and non-bailable warrant was issued against him. After much efforts of the informant, the applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 10.03.2025 i.e. after a delay of about 42 days from the date of passing of the bail cancellation order, as such, he is not entitled for bail as he has misused the process of court and has not complied with the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.01.2025. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:-

18. The bail application has also been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. 4 BAIL No. 18594 of 2025 CONCLUSION:-

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and considering the delay of seven hours in lodging the FIR coupled by the fact that there being no medical corroboration of the incident as no firearm injury was sustained by the injured as the applicant was assigned the role of firing and also taking into consideration the fact that the main accused person Aurangzeb has been enlarged on bail, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Jeeshan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 22, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad