State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel and AAG assisted by Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. This instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Shekhar @ Chandrashekhar s/o Late Charan Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 990 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 34, 120B I.P.C. and Section 30 of Arms Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant in the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 23.10.2024 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2023.

3. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number was lodged nominating 8 persons including the applicant along with 5-6 unknown persons with the allegation that the first informant Bhupendra Yadav along with his father Ashok Kumar and uncles, namely, Rohtash and Udyaveer reached Yaduvanshi Farmhouse at around 9:30 pm to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Vinod 2 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025 Yadav. The accused persons were already present there and upon seeing the first informant and his father, they all started abusing them and attacked the father of the informant with intention to kill him. The applicant is alleged to have fired upon the father of the informant first and then Yashpal co-accused also fired upon the father of the informant and also upon the uncle Rohtash who managed to evade the shot whereafter all the accused fled from the place of the incident advancing threats to the first informant. The father of the informant Ashok Kumar was taken to Yatharth Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The informant assigned the motive to commit the crime as a pending matrimonial dispute between the younger brother of the informant Dinesh and his wife Jyoti (daughter of the applicant).

4. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has attempted to argue that the incident did not occur in the manner as set out in the FIR. In furtherance of his submissions, he submits that the falsity of the FIR is established from the fact that the FIR has been lodged by the informant Bhupendra Yadav son of the deceased on 28.11.2023 at 5:28 am in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 27.11.2023 at 21:30 hours. The information received by the P.S. concerned is 5:01 am on 28.11.2023 after 6 hours of the incident. The dead body of the deceased Ashok Kumar was brought by his brother Satish Kumar to the hospital before being sent for Panchnama. The name of Satish Kumar does not find mention in the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been adequately explained. In the FIR, the applicant has been assigned the role of firing a bullet into the head of the deceased and co-accused Yashpal is also alleged to have fired upon the deceased and thereafter upon the uncle Rohtash. The post-mortem of the deceased revealed the following ante-mortem injuries. " i. 0.75cm x 0.75 cm circular inverted margins and with blackening tnt around it, entry wound present on left side of face 2 cm away from gragus of Lt. ear at 9'o clock position. ii. 0.75 cm x 0.7 cm circular inverted margins entry wound blackening around it tnt 4cm vertically above injury no. 1 on Lt. side of scalp. iii. Fracture of Lt. side temporal bone tnt. iv. Fracture of frontal bone on rt. side forehead tnt. v. Fracture of Lt. side maxilla bone tnt." 3 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025

5. The cause of death reported is brain injury subsequent to fire arm injury. In the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the first informant has reiterated the prosecution version as set out in the FIR. However, in the second statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the first informant has deviated from the FIR version and stated that both the shots that hit the deceased Ashok Kumar were fired by the applicant and co-accused Yashpal had fired upon his uncle Rohtash which did not hit him. The first informant in his testimony as P.W.1 again has fallen back upon the version of the FIR and assigned the role of firing upon the deceased to the applicant and co- accused Yashpal. It is also argued that the independent witness Mohammend Umar, Devendra Sharma and Shan Mohammad who were present at the Yaduvanshi farmhouse have not named the applicant in their statements. The witness Yogendra Kumar Sharma has not seen the incident and has merely stated that the applicant used to carry his licensed revolver all the time. Another independent witness Naeem Hussain who was stated to have been operating the coffee machine on the day of the incident has also not named the applicant and stated that an altercation had taken place between a group of 5-6 persons and thereafter a medium heighted person discharged two fire arm shots which fact is suggestive of the falsity of the incident as set out in the FIR. It is also argued that co-accused Yashpal was arrested and at the time of his arrest a licensed revolver of 0.32 bore calibre, one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges were recovered from his possession. It is next submitted that co-accused Vikas Alias Vikas Yadav, Vedprakash Alias Khabbi, Saurabh Kumar, Gaurav Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 01.05.2024, 18.10.2024 and 01.05.2024, respectively. The trial against the applicant is proceeding and the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have already been recorded. The two fact witnesses have already been examined and examination of formal witness is underway and in such circumstances, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with, influencing, threatening or inducing the witnesses of fact. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since

30.11.2023. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail is prayed for.

6. Per contra, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA as also Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that there exists sufficient incriminating evidence against the applicant. The 4 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025 applicant is the principal offender and has been assigned the role of firing at the deceased Ashok. The applicant is named in the FIR. The first informant has been consistent in nominating the applicant to have caused the fatal firearm injury to the deceased. There is no material contradiction in the statement of the informant as alleged by the defence. The recovery of the weapon (fire arm) involved in the commission of the crime has been recovered from the possession and pointing out of the applicant. There is strong motive against the applicant to commit the crime. Even after commencement of the trial, the applicant's side has been advancing threats to the informant not to give his testimony before the trial court for which the informant has also lodged a separate FIR. It is also submitted that before the trial court, 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024) wherein the Apex Court has observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc. once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the court be it the trial court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. It is accordingly prayed that the Bail Application warrants outright rejection.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage of the proceedings is made out.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

9. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. August 27, 2025 Anjali (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel and AAG assisted by Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

2. This instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Shekhar @ Chandrashekhar s/o Late Charan Singh, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 990 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 34, 120B I.P.C. and Section 30 of Arms Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant in the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 23.10.2024 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2023.

3. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number was lodged nominating 8 persons including the applicant along with 5-6 unknown persons with the allegation that the first informant Bhupendra Yadav along with his father Ashok Kumar and uncles, namely, Rohtash and Udyaveer reached Yaduvanshi Farmhouse at around 9:30 pm to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Vinod 2 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025 Yadav. The accused persons were already present there and upon seeing the first informant and his father, they all started abusing them and attacked the father of the informant with intention to kill him. The applicant is alleged to have fired upon the father of the informant first and then Yashpal co-accused also fired upon the father of the informant and also upon the uncle Rohtash who managed to evade the shot whereafter all the accused fled from the place of the incident advancing threats to the first informant. The father of the informant Ashok Kumar was taken to Yatharth Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The informant assigned the motive to commit the crime as a pending matrimonial dispute between the younger brother of the informant Dinesh and his wife Jyoti (daughter of the applicant).

4. Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has attempted to argue that the incident did not occur in the manner as set out in the FIR. In furtherance of his submissions, he submits that the falsity of the FIR is established from the fact that the FIR has been lodged by the informant Bhupendra Yadav son of the deceased on 28.11.2023 at 5:28 am in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 27.11.2023 at 21:30 hours. The information received by the P.S. concerned is 5:01 am on 28.11.2023 after 6 hours of the incident. The dead body of the deceased Ashok Kumar was brought by his brother Satish Kumar to the hospital before being sent for Panchnama. The name of Satish Kumar does not find mention in the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been adequately explained. In the FIR, the applicant has been assigned the role of firing a bullet into the head of the deceased and co-accused Yashpal is also alleged to have fired upon the deceased and thereafter upon the uncle Rohtash. The post-mortem of the deceased revealed the following ante-mortem injuries. " i. 0.75cm x 0.75 cm circular inverted margins and with blackening tnt around it, entry wound present on left side of face 2 cm away from gragus of Lt. ear at 9'o clock position. ii. 0.75 cm x 0.7 cm circular inverted margins entry wound blackening around it tnt 4cm vertically above injury no. 1 on Lt. side of scalp. iii. Fracture of Lt. side temporal bone tnt. iv. Fracture of frontal bone on rt. side forehead tnt. v. Fracture of Lt. side maxilla bone tnt." 3 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025

5. The cause of death reported is brain injury subsequent to fire arm injury. In the statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the first informant has reiterated the prosecution version as set out in the FIR. However, in the second statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the first informant has deviated from the FIR version and stated that both the shots that hit the deceased Ashok Kumar were fired by the applicant and co-accused Yashpal had fired upon his uncle Rohtash which did not hit him. The first informant in his testimony as P.W.1 again has fallen back upon the version of the FIR and assigned the role of firing upon the deceased to the applicant and co- accused Yashpal. It is also argued that the independent witness Mohammend Umar, Devendra Sharma and Shan Mohammad who were present at the Yaduvanshi farmhouse have not named the applicant in their statements. The witness Yogendra Kumar Sharma has not seen the incident and has merely stated that the applicant used to carry his licensed revolver all the time. Another independent witness Naeem Hussain who was stated to have been operating the coffee machine on the day of the incident has also not named the applicant and stated that an altercation had taken place between a group of 5-6 persons and thereafter a medium heighted person discharged two fire arm shots which fact is suggestive of the falsity of the incident as set out in the FIR. It is also argued that co-accused Yashpal was arrested and at the time of his arrest a licensed revolver of 0.32 bore calibre, one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges were recovered from his possession. It is next submitted that co-accused Vikas Alias Vikas Yadav, Vedprakash Alias Khabbi, Saurabh Kumar, Gaurav Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 01.05.2024, 18.10.2024 and 01.05.2024, respectively. The trial against the applicant is proceeding and the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have already been recorded. The two fact witnesses have already been examined and examination of formal witness is underway and in such circumstances, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with, influencing, threatening or inducing the witnesses of fact. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since

30.11.2023. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail is prayed for.

6. Per contra, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA as also Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that there exists sufficient incriminating evidence against the applicant. The 4 BAIL No. 23730 of 2025 applicant is the principal offender and has been assigned the role of firing at the deceased Ashok. The applicant is named in the FIR. The first informant has been consistent in nominating the applicant to have caused the fatal firearm injury to the deceased. There is no material contradiction in the statement of the informant as alleged by the defence. The recovery of the weapon (fire arm) involved in the commission of the crime has been recovered from the possession and pointing out of the applicant. There is strong motive against the applicant to commit the crime. Even after commencement of the trial, the applicant's side has been advancing threats to the informant not to give his testimony before the trial court for which the informant has also lodged a separate FIR. It is also submitted that before the trial court, 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024) wherein the Apex Court has observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc. once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the court be it the trial court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. It is accordingly prayed that the Bail Application warrants outright rejection.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage of the proceedings is made out.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

9. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. August 27, 2025 Anjali (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad