High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Shivam @ Sheebu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Johari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Two supplementary affidavits were filed pursuant to the direction of this Court and, thereafter, by order dated 07.04.2025 ten days and no more time was granted to the State for filing counter affidavit with a specific direction to bring on record injury report of some Government Hospital or the injury report duly certified by the C.M.O. along with such counter affidavit.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed.

4. Prayer to grant further time stands rejected in view of the stop order passed on previous date.

5. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Shivam @ Sheebu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 276 of 2024, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.03.2024 at about 8.30 p.m., wherein allegation levelled against the applicant is that he opened gut shot fire on the son of the informant on the instigation of one Vikas Maurya. He submits that though Vikas Maurya has been granted bail by this Court under the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19277 of 2024, his role in the incident may not be at par with the applicant, however, so far as the merits of the applicant's case is concerned, it is a matter where the injured was not medically examined in any government hospital.

7. Submission is that the only documents in the name of medical report is Medical Injury Report dated 05.04.2024 issued from Srinath Medicity, a multi super specialty hospital, Bareilly which cannot be treated as an injury report, rather it can be treated only as a document demonstrating that the injured was admitted in the said hospital at 10.19 p.m. on 19.03.2024 for further management in ICU and had left the hospital on 20.03.2024 at 10.45 a.m. The document clearly mentions that the patient stayed in the hospital for around 12 hours only and wanted no definite treatment. The other documents are in the nature of undated Supplementary Report and MLC Report issued from Abhiram Hospital, Bareilly mentioning the date of admission of injured as 20.03.2024 and date of his discharge as 01.04.2024.

8. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit, i.e. the record of investigation conducted on 20.03.2024 w.e.f. 11.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m., wherein the investigating officer has mentioned that he had gone to Medicity Hospital, wherein the doctor on emergency duty was asked for recording statement of injured and the doctor said that the injured suffered gun shot injury in his stomach and was admitted in ICU and that he is not in a position to give his statement. Submission, therefore, is that all the dates and events and timings read with the contents of material on record make out a case where prosecution story is suspicious. Further submission is that Medicity Hospital is a well known hospital whereas Abhiram Hospital is known for orthopedic surgery etc. and photographs to substantiate the said submission has been annexed.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the statement of Dr. Rishi Jindal was recorded by the investigating officer, who stated that a bullet was operated from the chest of injured and that he was discharged from the said hospital on 01.04.2024. He further submits that in his statement, the injured has supported the prosecution story and also the motive behind the incident, i.e. some money matter between the accused and injured. Further, learned A.G.A. has not brought on record any fact or circumstances to indicate such criminal history which may dis- entitle the applicant for bail.

10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable.

11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.

12. The detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person unless proved and established otherwise. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant since 21.03.2024 for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant-Shivam @ Sheebu involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution/informant shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

17. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Pkb/ PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Shivam @ Sheebu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Johari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Two supplementary affidavits were filed pursuant to the direction of this Court and, thereafter, by order dated 07.04.2025 ten days and no more time was granted to the State for filing counter affidavit with a specific direction to bring on record injury report of some Government Hospital or the injury report duly certified by the C.M.O. along with such counter affidavit.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed.

4. Prayer to grant further time stands rejected in view of the stop order passed on previous date.

5. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Shivam @ Sheebu with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 276 of 2024, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.03.2024 at about 8.30 p.m., wherein allegation levelled against the applicant is that he opened gut shot fire on the son of the informant on the instigation of one Vikas Maurya. He submits that though Vikas Maurya has been granted bail by this Court under the order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19277 of 2024, his role in the incident may not be at par with the applicant, however, so far as the merits of the applicant's case is concerned, it is a matter where the injured was not medically examined in any government hospital.

7. Submission is that the only documents in the name of medical report is Medical Injury Report dated 05.04.2024 issued from Srinath Medicity, a multi super specialty hospital, Bareilly which cannot be treated as an injury report, rather it can be treated only as a document demonstrating that the injured was admitted in the said hospital at 10.19 p.m. on 19.03.2024 for further management in ICU and had left the hospital on 20.03.2024 at 10.45 a.m. The document clearly mentions that the patient stayed in the hospital for around 12 hours only and wanted no definite treatment. The other documents are in the nature of undated Supplementary Report and MLC Report issued from Abhiram Hospital, Bareilly mentioning the date of admission of injured as 20.03.2024 and date of his discharge as 01.04.2024.

8. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit, i.e. the record of investigation conducted on 20.03.2024 w.e.f. 11.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m., wherein the investigating officer has mentioned that he had gone to Medicity Hospital, wherein the doctor on emergency duty was asked for recording statement of injured and the doctor said that the injured suffered gun shot injury in his stomach and was admitted in ICU and that he is not in a position to give his statement. Submission, therefore, is that all the dates and events and timings read with the contents of material on record make out a case where prosecution story is suspicious. Further submission is that Medicity Hospital is a well known hospital whereas Abhiram Hospital is known for orthopedic surgery etc. and photographs to substantiate the said submission has been annexed.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the statement of Dr. Rishi Jindal was recorded by the investigating officer, who stated that a bullet was operated from the chest of injured and that he was discharged from the said hospital on 01.04.2024. He further submits that in his statement, the injured has supported the prosecution story and also the motive behind the incident, i.e. some money matter between the accused and injured. Further, learned A.G.A. has not brought on record any fact or circumstances to indicate such criminal history which may dis- entitle the applicant for bail.

10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable.

11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.

12. The detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person unless proved and established otherwise. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant since 21.03.2024 for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

14. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant-Shivam @ Sheebu involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution/informant shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

17. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Pkb/ PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad