High Court · 2025

1-Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Shamsher Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27(1) Arms Act, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case, complainant-Gulab Singh got a first information report lodged on 03.03.2025 for the offence under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) B.N.S. against Sukhdev Singh, Harman and Harjit making allegation inter-alia that on 02.03.2025 at about 10:20 p.m., he along with his cousin Vikram Singh had gone to attend a programme at the house of his friend Anmol where D.J. was also playing. As soon as they reached there, present applicant-Sukhdev Singh pushed him and Harman, in order to kill Vikram Singh, made a fire shot at him which hit to his neck. F.I.R. also alleges that as soon as they caught Harman, he passes his pistol to Sukhdev Singh, who made second fire shot at Vikram Singh, which hit to his thigh. 4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the role of fire shot, on the vital part of the injured-Vikram Singh, has been assigned to co-accused Harman, whereas, the alleged fire shot made by the applicant hit the injured on his non-vital part of the body. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and in support of this submission, he has pointed out that the injured-Vikram Singh was admitted in Nagar Hospital on 03.03.2025 at 12:40 a.m. where his injuries were examined and it was found that he has received two injuries. The injury no. 1 is of entry wound 3x1 cm and exit wound 2x2 cm on the cervical region and the injury no. 2 is 2x2 cm on posterior lateral aspect entry wound. In order to determine the nature of injury, x-ray of cervical spine and left thigh was advised. It is next submitted that as per the prosecution case, the injury no. 2 of the injured is related to the present applicant but when the x-ray of the injured was done on 03.03.2025 in Orbit Diagnostics, no abnormalities have been deducted and even no radio-opaque has been found. It is next submitted that since the prosecution case was not corroborated from the medical evidence, therefore, in order to improve the prosecution case, x-ray of injured was again done on 26.03.2025 in the same hospital by the same doctor, wherein radio- opaque density involving the soft tissue along with lateral aspect has been shown. Thereafter, a certificate was issued by Nagar Hospital that injured- Vikram was admitted in the hospital on 26.03.2025 at about 11:00 p.m. and his operation was done and the bullet, which was inside of his thigh, was removed and handed over to Sub-Inspector Nirdosh Kumar on 10.04.2025. It is also pointed out that the date of certificate, which was issued on 20.04.2025, has been changed as 10.04.2025 by interpolation, which is apparent from naked eye. Thereafter, the investigating ofÏcer has shown a false recovery of a country-made pistol from the possession of the applicant on 08.05.2025. As such, whole prosecution case so far as applicant is concerned, is false and based on manipulation. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of allegations levelled in the first information report but they could not dispute the factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the alleged fire shot, so far as the the applicant-Sukhdev is concerned, hit to the injured on his thigh, which is non-vital part of the body. There is no plausible explanation of the contradiction in x-ray reports of the injured prepared on 03.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 in the same hospital by the same doctor. There is also no explanation of the prosecution that when the bullet was removed from the body of the injured on 26.03.2025, then why it was not handed over to the police immediately and the same was handed over to the police after about 14 days' i.e. on 10.04.2025. As on date, nothing is on record to indicate that the alleged recovered country-made pistol along with the bullet were sent for forensic examination. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed. 9-Let the applicant-Sukhdev Singh, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 10-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. 11-It is made clear that the case of present applicant is distinguishable to that of co-accused Harman, therefore, the benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to co-accused Harman. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1-Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Shamsher Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27(1) Arms Act, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut during the pendency of trial. 3-As per the prosecution case, complainant-Gulab Singh got a first information report lodged on 03.03.2025 for the offence under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) B.N.S. against Sukhdev Singh, Harman and Harjit making allegation inter-alia that on 02.03.2025 at about 10:20 p.m., he along with his cousin Vikram Singh had gone to attend a programme at the house of his friend Anmol where D.J. was also playing. As soon as they reached there, present applicant-Sukhdev Singh pushed him and Harman, in order to kill Vikram Singh, made a fire shot at him which hit to his neck. F.I.R. also alleges that as soon as they caught Harman, he passes his pistol to Sukhdev Singh, who made second fire shot at Vikram Singh, which hit to his thigh. 4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the role of fire shot, on the vital part of the injured-Vikram Singh, has been assigned to co-accused Harman, whereas, the alleged fire shot made by the applicant hit the injured on his non-vital part of the body. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and in support of this submission, he has pointed out that the injured-Vikram Singh was admitted in Nagar Hospital on 03.03.2025 at 12:40 a.m. where his injuries were examined and it was found that he has received two injuries. The injury no. 1 is of entry wound 3x1 cm and exit wound 2x2 cm on the cervical region and the injury no. 2 is 2x2 cm on posterior lateral aspect entry wound. In order to determine the nature of injury, x-ray of cervical spine and left thigh was advised. It is next submitted that as per the prosecution case, the injury no. 2 of the injured is related to the present applicant but when the x-ray of the injured was done on 03.03.2025 in Orbit Diagnostics, no abnormalities have been deducted and even no radio-opaque has been found. It is next submitted that since the prosecution case was not corroborated from the medical evidence, therefore, in order to improve the prosecution case, x-ray of injured was again done on 26.03.2025 in the same hospital by the same doctor, wherein radio- opaque density involving the soft tissue along with lateral aspect has been shown. Thereafter, a certificate was issued by Nagar Hospital that injured- Vikram was admitted in the hospital on 26.03.2025 at about 11:00 p.m. and his operation was done and the bullet, which was inside of his thigh, was removed and handed over to Sub-Inspector Nirdosh Kumar on 10.04.2025. It is also pointed out that the date of certificate, which was issued on 20.04.2025, has been changed as 10.04.2025 by interpolation, which is apparent from naked eye. Thereafter, the investigating ofÏcer has shown a false recovery of a country-made pistol from the possession of the applicant on 08.05.2025. As such, whole prosecution case so far as applicant is concerned, is false and based on manipulation. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. 5-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of allegations levelled in the first information report but they could not dispute the factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the alleged fire shot, so far as the the applicant-Sukhdev is concerned, hit to the injured on his thigh, which is non-vital part of the body. There is no plausible explanation of the contradiction in x-ray reports of the injured prepared on 03.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 in the same hospital by the same doctor. There is also no explanation of the prosecution that when the bullet was removed from the body of the injured on 26.03.2025, then why it was not handed over to the police immediately and the same was handed over to the police after about 14 days' i.e. on 10.04.2025. As on date, nothing is on record to indicate that the alleged recovered country-made pistol along with the bullet were sent for forensic examination. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed. 9-Let the applicant-Sukhdev Singh, 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 10-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. 11-It is made clear that the case of present applicant is distinguishable to that of co-accused Harman, therefore, the benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to co-accused Harman. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad