State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Abhimanyu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Shoyeb, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.230 of 2025, u/s 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.3.2025 by Raheesh against Sarique @ Munnu and one unknown companion of Sarique alleging therein that on 15.3.2025 at about 7.45 p.m. his son Majeed was going from the house on his battery rickshaw wherein Sarique @ Munnu and his other companion with an intention to kill him, fired due to which he received injury. He was being treated in JNMC but he died. His body is lying in the hospital. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further argued that the applicant is even not named in the statement recorded under Sectin 180 of BNSS of the first informant. Subsequently on 22.3.2025 which is after about seven days of the 2 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025 incident, the second statement of the first informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer who then discloses the name of the applicant and states that he came to know that the second man present at the place of incident with the named accused was Shoeb @ Chunnu who was seen running away with the named accused Sarique on a scooty in C.C.T.V footage. The same does not in any manner show the presence of the applicant at the said place, para 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of bail application have been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that Afzal was interrogated as an eye-witness of the incident who assigns the role of firing upon the deceased to Sarique @ Munnu and Shoeb @ Chunnu, the same is not corroborated by medical report inasmuch as the doctor conducting the postmortem report found single fire-arm wound of entry and four lacerated wound on the body of the deceased and cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem fire-arm injury and further the doctor found only one mettalic bullet from the body of the deceased. The cause of death was by single shot, as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is an afterthought as role assigned to him is also inconsistent with the medical evidence as two persons are alleged to have fired on the deceased but he has received only one gun-shot injury. While placing para 18 and 21 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it has been argued that a country-made pistol has been recovered on the pointing out of the co- accused Sarique and also from the applicant on 23.4.2025 but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 8.4.2025.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in the matter in the second statement of the first informant under Section 180 BNSS. There is one eye-witness interrogated during investigation being Afzal after about one month of the incident who assigns the role of firing by the co-accused and the applicant upon the deceased but as per medical report, he received single gun-shot injury. There is no specification regarding the same and author of the said injury received by the deceased is not known. 3 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Shoyeb, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to 4 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025 conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 24, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Abhimanyu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Shoyeb, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.230 of 2025, u/s 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.3.2025 by Raheesh against Sarique @ Munnu and one unknown companion of Sarique alleging therein that on 15.3.2025 at about 7.45 p.m. his son Majeed was going from the house on his battery rickshaw wherein Sarique @ Munnu and his other companion with an intention to kill him, fired due to which he received injury. He was being treated in JNMC but he died. His body is lying in the hospital. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further argued that the applicant is even not named in the statement recorded under Sectin 180 of BNSS of the first informant. Subsequently on 22.3.2025 which is after about seven days of the 2 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025 incident, the second statement of the first informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer who then discloses the name of the applicant and states that he came to know that the second man present at the place of incident with the named accused was Shoeb @ Chunnu who was seen running away with the named accused Sarique on a scooty in C.C.T.V footage. The same does not in any manner show the presence of the applicant at the said place, para 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of bail application have been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that Afzal was interrogated as an eye-witness of the incident who assigns the role of firing upon the deceased to Sarique @ Munnu and Shoeb @ Chunnu, the same is not corroborated by medical report inasmuch as the doctor conducting the postmortem report found single fire-arm wound of entry and four lacerated wound on the body of the deceased and cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem fire-arm injury and further the doctor found only one mettalic bullet from the body of the deceased. The cause of death was by single shot, as such the implication of the applicant in the present matter is an afterthought as role assigned to him is also inconsistent with the medical evidence as two persons are alleged to have fired on the deceased but he has received only one gun-shot injury. While placing para 18 and 21 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it has been argued that a country-made pistol has been recovered on the pointing out of the co- accused Sarique and also from the applicant on 23.4.2025 but there is no corroboration of the use of the said weapon. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 8.4.2025.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in the matter in the second statement of the first informant under Section 180 BNSS. There is one eye-witness interrogated during investigation being Afzal after about one month of the incident who assigns the role of firing by the co-accused and the applicant upon the deceased but as per medical report, he received single gun-shot injury. There is no specification regarding the same and author of the said injury received by the deceased is not known. 3 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Shoyeb, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to 4 BAIL No. 25809 of 2025 conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 24, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad