High Court · 2025

3-Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that the complainant got a first information report lodged on 07.06.2025 for the offence under Sections 191(2), 190, 109(1), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 against eight named accused persons, namely, Shahbaz, Akram, Firoz, Kaushar, Annu, Mukeem (applicant no.1), younger sons of Muskeem, Mahfooj Malik (applicant no.2)1 and one unknown person making allegation inter alia that on 06.06.2025 at about 07:30, some altercation took place between his son and accused Shabaaj, Akram and Firoj. On which said people abused and attacked Sawan. The accused Shabaaj attacked Sawan on his chest with a knife kept in a cart shouting slogans of Naara-e-takbir. Accused Akaram attacked Sawan’s head with an iron rod. Due to which Sawan got injured and fell down. Meanwhile Kausar, Anu, Mukeem (applicant no.1), Muskeem’s younger sons, Mahfooj Malik and 30 unknown people started beating his both the sons with sticks and shouting kill them all. They also tide a rope around Sawan’s neck and pulled him with intention to kill him. 4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that he applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In the incident in question, two persons, namely, Parikshit and Sawan have received injuries. It is further pointed out that Sawan have received total five injuries, out of which, injury nos.1 & 2 are incised wounds, which are said to have been caused with knife by co-accused Shahbaz and injury nos.3 & 4 are in the nature of multiple red contusions on mid back, right forearm respectively, which is said to have caused with iron rod by co- accused Arman. Injury no.4 is red contusion on front of neck right to left and as per the medical report, except the injury nos.1 & 2, rest of the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. In X-ray and supplementary report of Sawan, no abnormalities have been found in his skull and chest. So far as another injured Parikshit concerned, he has received three injuries out of which, injury no.1 in the nature of traumatic swelling, injury no. 2 is the multiple abrasion and injury no.3 is red multiple contusion, which has been caused by hard and blunt object but all the injuries are simple in nature. On the strength of aforesaid injuries, it is further argued that both the injured in their first statement, assigned specific role of assault with knife against Shahbaz and role of assault with iron rod against Arman, which is also corroborated from medical report of injured person. Apart from specific role against Shahbaz and Arman, general role of assault with sticks has been assigned to rest of five named accused persons, namely, Kaushar, Annu, Mukim, Muskim and Mehfooj and more than thirty unknown persons. Thereafter, they in their majid (second) statement also taked the name of four other persons, namely, Sharik, Riyaz Malik, Sahil and Quadir. As such, it is a case of the prosecution that apart from Shahbaz and Arman, five named accused persons and thirty unknown persons have assaulted the both injured persons, whereas number of injuries does not match with number of the persons made accused in this case. It has also not specified that who has tide a rope around Sawan’s neck and pulled him. Apart from the aforesaid submission, it is also argued that incident has not taken place in pre- planned manner but the same has occurred on account of sudden fight between two groups. From the side of applicant, Shahbaz has also received seven injuries. The applicants, who have no criminal history and are languishing in jail since 22.06.2025 and 15.06.2025 respectively are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. and the statement of injured persons by contenting that apart from Shahbaz and Arman, all other co-accused persons in collusion with each other played active role in assaulting the injured, therefore, their innocence cannot be considered at this stage. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that specific role of causing injury with knife has been attributed to Shahbaz and specific role of causing injury with iron rod has been attributed to co- accused Arman and general role of assault has been assigned to rest of accused persons. Hence, considering the allegations, nature and total number of injuries received by both the injured, case of the applicants is distinguishable from the case of Shahbaz and Arman. 7-In view of above, the applicants have made out a case for bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application of applicants is hereby allowed. 9-Let the applicants-Mukeem and Mahfooj Malik, 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 applicants shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court. (ii) That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after their release, the applicants shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The applicants shall not take any adjournment before the trial Court. (v) 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, for the complainant/prosecution to move bail cancellation application before this Court. is open 11-It is made clear that parity of this order shall not be extended to the co-accused, namely, Shahbaz and Arman. 12-Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and both the injured within three days. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Sanjeet SANJEET KUMAR YADAV SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3-Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that the complainant got a first information report lodged on 07.06.2025 for the offence under Sections 191(2), 190, 109(1), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 against eight named accused persons, namely, Shahbaz, Akram, Firoz, Kaushar, Annu, Mukeem (applicant no.1), younger sons of Muskeem, Mahfooj Malik (applicant no.2)1 and one unknown person making allegation inter alia that on 06.06.2025 at about 07:30, some altercation took place between his son and accused Shabaaj, Akram and Firoj. On which said people abused and attacked Sawan. The accused Shabaaj attacked Sawan on his chest with a knife kept in a cart shouting slogans of Naara-e-takbir. Accused Akaram attacked Sawan’s head with an iron rod. Due to which Sawan got injured and fell down. Meanwhile Kausar, Anu, Mukeem (applicant no.1), Muskeem’s younger sons, Mahfooj Malik and 30 unknown people started beating his both the sons with sticks and shouting kill them all. They also tide a rope around Sawan’s neck and pulled him with intention to kill him. 4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that he applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In the incident in question, two persons, namely, Parikshit and Sawan have received injuries. It is further pointed out that Sawan have received total five injuries, out of which, injury nos.1 & 2 are incised wounds, which are said to have been caused with knife by co-accused Shahbaz and injury nos.3 & 4 are in the nature of multiple red contusions on mid back, right forearm respectively, which is said to have caused with iron rod by co- accused Arman. Injury no.4 is red contusion on front of neck right to left and as per the medical report, except the injury nos.1 & 2, rest of the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. In X-ray and supplementary report of Sawan, no abnormalities have been found in his skull and chest. So far as another injured Parikshit concerned, he has received three injuries out of which, injury no.1 in the nature of traumatic swelling, injury no. 2 is the multiple abrasion and injury no.3 is red multiple contusion, which has been caused by hard and blunt object but all the injuries are simple in nature. On the strength of aforesaid injuries, it is further argued that both the injured in their first statement, assigned specific role of assault with knife against Shahbaz and role of assault with iron rod against Arman, which is also corroborated from medical report of injured person. Apart from specific role against Shahbaz and Arman, general role of assault with sticks has been assigned to rest of five named accused persons, namely, Kaushar, Annu, Mukim, Muskim and Mehfooj and more than thirty unknown persons. Thereafter, they in their majid (second) statement also taked the name of four other persons, namely, Sharik, Riyaz Malik, Sahil and Quadir. As such, it is a case of the prosecution that apart from Shahbaz and Arman, five named accused persons and thirty unknown persons have assaulted the both injured persons, whereas number of injuries does not match with number of the persons made accused in this case. It has also not specified that who has tide a rope around Sawan’s neck and pulled him. Apart from the aforesaid submission, it is also argued that incident has not taken place in pre- planned manner but the same has occurred on account of sudden fight between two groups. From the side of applicant, Shahbaz has also received seven injuries. The applicants, who have no criminal history and are languishing in jail since 22.06.2025 and 15.06.2025 respectively are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. and the statement of injured persons by contenting that apart from Shahbaz and Arman, all other co-accused persons in collusion with each other played active role in assaulting the injured, therefore, their innocence cannot be considered at this stage. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that specific role of causing injury with knife has been attributed to Shahbaz and specific role of causing injury with iron rod has been attributed to co- accused Arman and general role of assault has been assigned to rest of accused persons. Hence, considering the allegations, nature and total number of injuries received by both the injured, case of the applicants is distinguishable from the case of Shahbaz and Arman. 7-In view of above, the applicants have made out a case for bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application of applicants is hereby allowed. 9-Let the applicants-Mukeem and Mahfooj Malik, 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 applicants shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court. (ii) That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after their release, the applicants shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The applicants shall not take any adjournment before the trial Court. (v) 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, for the complainant/prosecution to move bail cancellation application before this Court. is open 11-It is made clear that parity of this order shall not be extended to the co-accused, namely, Shahbaz and Arman. 12-Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and both the injured within three days. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Sanjeet SANJEET KUMAR YADAV SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad