In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

2. By means of this application, applicant-Amit Sharma alias Dimpi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 93 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 109, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant, who is injured also, got a first information report lodged on 03.03.2025 against Deepak, Amit (applicant), Kanhaiya, Chaheta, Smt. Darshan Devi and Aslam stating inter alia that on 02.03.2025 at around 10.30 P.M. when he along with his friend Dheeraj reached at a Shop in Arjunpura to buy gutkha, at that time the accused persons were already present there. They attacked his friend Dheeraj alias Raju with knife with intention to kill him, as a result thereof he got seriously injured. When complainant tried to save his friend they also assaulted him due to which he also received injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute and local politics. The incident took place on 02.03.2025 at about 10.30 P.M., whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 03.03.2025 at about 5.00 PM. The injury sustained by both the injured are simple in nature. False recovery of knife has been shown from the possession of applicant since there is no independent witness of said recovery, therefore, prosecution case is not liable to be believed. Applicant has criminal history of thirteen cases, in which he has been granted bail, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 in the present case, is liable to be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that apart from Dheeraj alias Raju, complainant Chetan Sharma is also injured and both the injured have received injuries in the nature of incised wounds which are corroborated from the prosecution case. It is also submitted that injured Chetan Sharma in his statement has stated inter alia that Deepak alias Baniya and Chaheta caught his friend Dheeraj alias Raju, then Kanhaiya and Amit alias Dimpi (applicant) with intention to kill him attacked with knifes, whereby he got seriously injured. When he tried to save him they also attacked on him, whereby he also got injured. Similar statement has been given by another injured Dheeraj alias Raju. It is next submitted that the knife which was used in the commission of crime has also been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. The effort was made to persuade the public witnesses passing through but due to good and bad they did not come forward to become witness of the said incident. However, video of arrest and recovery has been made by the police in the light of provisions of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. It is also pointed out that apart from this case the applicant has criminal history of nineteen cases, whereas he has disclosed his criminal history of only thirteen cases. Lastly it is submitted that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that:-

6.1. Both the injured in their statements have made specific allegation of causing knife injuries to them against Kanhaiya and applicant Amit alias Dimpy.

6.2. Injured Dheeraj Chaurasiy have received following five injuries:- (i) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm Muscle deep at left side back of the chest mid-part. (ii) Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at left side back of chest mid part 2 cm from injury No. 1 (iii) Incised wound 3 x0.5 cm muscle deep at mid of the chest upper part. (iv) Incised wound 3 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at back of right shoulder. (v) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at left side of chest lower part.

6.3. Injured Chetan Sharma has received one injury being incised wound 4 x 0.5 cm Muscle deep right hand between thumb and index finger KW advised X- Ray.

6.4. Apart from this case the applicant has criminal history of following nineteen cases:- (i) Case Crime No. 548 of 2015, under Sections 147, 201, 302 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (ii) Case Crime No. 398 of 2016, under Sections 323, 354(kha), 452, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (iii) Case Crime No. 177 of 2016, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (iv) Case Crime No. 166 of 2016, under Sections 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (v) Case Crime No. 108 of 2016, under Sections 3/25A Arms Act, police station Barsana, district Mathura. (vi) Case Crime No. 1208 of 2017, under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, police station Vrindawan, district Mathura. (vii) Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (viii) Case Crime No. 525 of 2018, under Sections 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (ix) Case Crime No. 556 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Highway, district Mathura. (x) Case Crime No. 165 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411, 506 I.P.C., police station Maant, district Mathura. (xi) Case Crime No. 245 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Kotwali, district Mathura. (xii) Case Crime No. 304 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C., police station Kotwali, district Mathura. (xiii) Case Crime No. 566 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Highway, district Mathura. (xiv) Case Crime No. 420 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xv) Case Crime No. 204 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xvi) Case Crime No. 205 of 2022, under Sections 3/10 of Gundas Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xvii) Case Crime No. 322 of 2023, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C., police station Jait, district Mathura. (xviii) Case Crime No. 322 of 2023, under Sections 279, 337, 338 I.P.C., police station Jait, district Mathura. (xix) Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under: "This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A historysheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."

9. The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781.

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

12. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

2. By means of this application, applicant-Amit Sharma alias Dimpi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 93 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 109, 118(1), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the complainant, who is injured also, got a first information report lodged on 03.03.2025 against Deepak, Amit (applicant), Kanhaiya, Chaheta, Smt. Darshan Devi and Aslam stating inter alia that on 02.03.2025 at around 10.30 P.M. when he along with his friend Dheeraj reached at a Shop in Arjunpura to buy gutkha, at that time the accused persons were already present there. They attacked his friend Dheeraj alias Raju with knife with intention to kill him, as a result thereof he got seriously injured. When complainant tried to save his friend they also assaulted him due to which he also received injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute and local politics. The incident took place on 02.03.2025 at about 10.30 P.M., whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 03.03.2025 at about 5.00 PM. The injury sustained by both the injured are simple in nature. False recovery of knife has been shown from the possession of applicant since there is no independent witness of said recovery, therefore, prosecution case is not liable to be believed. Applicant has criminal history of thirteen cases, in which he has been granted bail, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 in the present case, is liable to be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that apart from Dheeraj alias Raju, complainant Chetan Sharma is also injured and both the injured have received injuries in the nature of incised wounds which are corroborated from the prosecution case. It is also submitted that injured Chetan Sharma in his statement has stated inter alia that Deepak alias Baniya and Chaheta caught his friend Dheeraj alias Raju, then Kanhaiya and Amit alias Dimpi (applicant) with intention to kill him attacked with knifes, whereby he got seriously injured. When he tried to save him they also attacked on him, whereby he also got injured. Similar statement has been given by another injured Dheeraj alias Raju. It is next submitted that the knife which was used in the commission of crime has also been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. The effort was made to persuade the public witnesses passing through but due to good and bad they did not come forward to become witness of the said incident. However, video of arrest and recovery has been made by the police in the light of provisions of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. It is also pointed out that apart from this case the applicant has criminal history of nineteen cases, whereas he has disclosed his criminal history of only thirteen cases. Lastly it is submitted that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that:-

6.1. Both the injured in their statements have made specific allegation of causing knife injuries to them against Kanhaiya and applicant Amit alias Dimpy.

6.2. Injured Dheeraj Chaurasiy have received following five injuries:- (i) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm Muscle deep at left side back of the chest mid-part. (ii) Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at left side back of chest mid part 2 cm from injury No. 1 (iii) Incised wound 3 x0.5 cm muscle deep at mid of the chest upper part. (iv) Incised wound 3 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at back of right shoulder. (v) Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm muscle deep at left side of chest lower part.

6.3. Injured Chetan Sharma has received one injury being incised wound 4 x 0.5 cm Muscle deep right hand between thumb and index finger KW advised X- Ray.

6.4. Apart from this case the applicant has criminal history of following nineteen cases:- (i) Case Crime No. 548 of 2015, under Sections 147, 201, 302 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (ii) Case Crime No. 398 of 2016, under Sections 323, 354(kha), 452, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (iii) Case Crime No. 177 of 2016, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (iv) Case Crime No. 166 of 2016, under Sections 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (v) Case Crime No. 108 of 2016, under Sections 3/25A Arms Act, police station Barsana, district Mathura. (vi) Case Crime No. 1208 of 2017, under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, police station Vrindawan, district Mathura. (vii) Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (viii) Case Crime No. 525 of 2018, under Sections 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (ix) Case Crime No. 556 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Highway, district Mathura. (x) Case Crime No. 165 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411, 506 I.P.C., police station Maant, district Mathura. (xi) Case Crime No. 245 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Kotwali, district Mathura. (xii) Case Crime No. 304 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 of I.P.C., police station Kotwali, district Mathura. (xiii) Case Crime No. 566 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., police station Highway, district Mathura. (xiv) Case Crime No. 420 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xv) Case Crime No. 204 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xvi) Case Crime No. 205 of 2022, under Sections 3/10 of Gundas Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura. (xvii) Case Crime No. 322 of 2023, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of I.P.C., police station Jait, district Mathura. (xviii) Case Crime No. 322 of 2023, under Sections 279, 337, 338 I.P.C., police station Jait, district Mathura. (xix) Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, police station Govindnagar, district Mathura.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under: "This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A historysheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."

9. The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781.

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

12. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad