High Court · 2025

and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.90 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.07.2024 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR on 19.07.2024 at about 01:00 p.m. in the afternoon applicant and other accused persons, who were having illegal firearms, made indiscriminate firing upon the informant and another and when they tried to escape then on the exhortation of co-accused Uadaiveer, who was having licensee gun, applicant and co-accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar caught hold Rajveer Singh, the brother of the informant and thereafter co-accused Udaiveer caused firearm injury to him through his licensee gun.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation only being son of the principal accused Udaiveer, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits that even as per allegation only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant and role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Udaiveer.

7. He further submits that as deceased died due to firearm injury, therefore, it is hard to believe that applicant and two others would have caught hold him and this fact shows that applicant and co- accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar have falsely been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but out of three cases, in two cases he was made accused subsequent to the present case, which were even lodged by the informant side and till date police did not arrest him in both cases.

9. He further submits that remaining solitary relates to the provisions of Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(rs), 3(2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act and in that case, applicant is on bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is in the present matter is in jail since 21.10.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant and other accused persons, who were close relatives of the informant wanted to take possession of the field and applicant was not only present at spot but he also actively participated in the alleged incident and he also opened fire from his countrymade pistol but could not dispute the fact that deceased sustained only one firearm injury and role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Udaiveer and only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant.

12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. Applicant is son of the principal accused Udaiveer and he alongwith co-accused Udaiveer and others has been made accused in the present matter and as per allegation however applicant opened fire but admittedly from the fire opened by him, none sustained any injury. However, it is further alleged that on the exhortation of co-accused Uadaiveer, applicant and co-accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Udaiveer caused firearm injury to him through his licensee gun, therefore, role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Udaiveer and only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant.

14. Further, considering the fact that it is a case of firearm injury, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it is hard to believe that applicant and two others would have caught hold the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but it reflects that out of three cases, in two cases he was made accused subsequent to the present case, which were lodged by the informant side and till date police did not arrest him in both cases.

16. Further, remaining solitary relates to the provisions of Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(rs), 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act and in that case, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, applicant is in the present matter is in jail since 21.10.2024.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.90 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.07.2024 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR on 19.07.2024 at about 01:00 p.m. in the afternoon applicant and other accused persons, who were having illegal firearms, made indiscriminate firing upon the informant and another and when they tried to escape then on the exhortation of co-accused Uadaiveer, who was having licensee gun, applicant and co-accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar caught hold Rajveer Singh, the brother of the informant and thereafter co-accused Udaiveer caused firearm injury to him through his licensee gun.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation only being son of the principal accused Udaiveer, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submits that even as per allegation only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant and role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Udaiveer.

7. He further submits that as deceased died due to firearm injury, therefore, it is hard to believe that applicant and two others would have caught hold him and this fact shows that applicant and co- accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar have falsely been made accused in the present matter.

8. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but out of three cases, in two cases he was made accused subsequent to the present case, which were even lodged by the informant side and till date police did not arrest him in both cases.

9. He further submits that remaining solitary relates to the provisions of Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(rs), 3(2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act and in that case, applicant is on bail.

10. He further submits that applicant is in the present matter is in jail since 21.10.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant and other accused persons, who were close relatives of the informant wanted to take possession of the field and applicant was not only present at spot but he also actively participated in the alleged incident and he also opened fire from his countrymade pistol but could not dispute the fact that deceased sustained only one firearm injury and role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Udaiveer and only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant.

12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. Applicant is son of the principal accused Udaiveer and he alongwith co-accused Udaiveer and others has been made accused in the present matter and as per allegation however applicant opened fire but admittedly from the fire opened by him, none sustained any injury. However, it is further alleged that on the exhortation of co-accused Uadaiveer, applicant and co-accused Shyamveer and Abhishek Kumar caught hold the deceased and thereafter co-accused Udaiveer caused firearm injury to him through his licensee gun, therefore, role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Udaiveer and only role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant.

14. Further, considering the fact that it is a case of firearm injury, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it is hard to believe that applicant and two others would have caught hold the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but it reflects that out of three cases, in two cases he was made accused subsequent to the present case, which were lodged by the informant side and till date police did not arrest him in both cases.

16. Further, remaining solitary relates to the provisions of Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(rs), 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act and in that case, applicant is on bail.

17. Further, applicant is in the present matter is in jail since 21.10.2024.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad