High Court · 2025

Suresh Bahadur, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.284of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109, 3(5), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Saraikhwaja, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.07.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR, in the month of May, 2024 co-accused Rehan alongwith others committed the murder of the father of the informant and in this regard they were facing trial under Section 302 I.P.C. but they were continuously pressurizing the informant side not to give evidence in that case and on 27.07.2024 they also threatened in this regard to them and in this regard an FIR was also lodged against them. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 30.07.2024 at about 5 p.m. in the evening when brother of the informant reached at the crossing then applicant and others came from scorpio vehicle and opened fire upon the informant and his brother. It is further mentioned in the FIR, luckily informant escaped but his brother Abdullah sustained injuries and died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that number of witnesses including Heera Lal Yadav and Rohit Yadav alongwith informant witnessed the incident.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith four others.

6. He further submits that in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including applicant but when it was found that deceased sustained only one fire-arm injury then informant and witnesses changed the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR and started making allegation that fire opened by applicant hit the deceased and this fact clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident.

7. He further submits that during investigation, I.O. procured a CCTV Footage of the incident and however, in that footage, applicant was seen alongwith countrymade pistol but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that he opened fire upon the deceased.

8. He further submits that merely on the basis of presence of the applicant at spot alongwith countrymade pistol, it cannot be said that he was having either common object or any intention to commit the murder of the deceased alongwith other accused persons.

9. He further submits that from the earlier case of murder of the father of the informant, applicant was not having any concern and in that case, he was not even accused.

10. He further submits that applicant belongs to different community and therefore, he was not having any motive to commit the murder of the brother of the informant.

11. He further submits that only being one of the friend of co- accused Arman, he has been made accused in the present matter.

12. He further submits that however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and he is in jail in the present matter since 05.08.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant has been specifically named in the FIR and since beginning, he has been assigned the role of firing.

14. They further submit that during investigation when the statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded then they categorically stated that due to the firing made by the applicant, deceased died.

15. They further submit that after considering the CCTV Footage, the presence of the applicant at the place of incident alongwith country made pistol has been established and therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that he is innocent.

16. They further submit that it is a case in which one person lost his life and applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 103 B.N.S. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment and maximum punishment is capital punishment and therefore, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail.

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

18. Applicant is named in the FIR alongwith four others and as per the FIR, applicant and others opened fire due to which deceased i.e. brother of the informant sustained fire-arm injury and died. However, post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only one fire-arm injury but from the record, it also reflects that during investigation when the statements of eye-witnesses were recorded including the statement of informant then they categorically stated that due to the fire opened by the applicant, deceased sustained fire-arm injury and died.

19. Further, from the record, it also reflects that during investigation, I.O. procured CCTV Footage of the incident and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was present at spot alongwith countrymade pistol and considering all these facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that it cannot be said that applicant did not participate in the incident and he is innocent.

20. Further, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and evidence available against him on record, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that at this stage it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail as he is facing trial for offence under Section 103 B.N.S. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment and maximum punishment is capital punishment.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant - Anuj Yadav stands dismissed.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 11.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Bahadur, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.284of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109, 3(5), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Saraikhwaja, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.07.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR, in the month of May, 2024 co-accused Rehan alongwith others committed the murder of the father of the informant and in this regard they were facing trial under Section 302 I.P.C. but they were continuously pressurizing the informant side not to give evidence in that case and on 27.07.2024 they also threatened in this regard to them and in this regard an FIR was also lodged against them. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 30.07.2024 at about 5 p.m. in the evening when brother of the informant reached at the crossing then applicant and others came from scorpio vehicle and opened fire upon the informant and his brother. It is further mentioned in the FIR, luckily informant escaped but his brother Abdullah sustained injuries and died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that number of witnesses including Heera Lal Yadav and Rohit Yadav alongwith informant witnessed the incident.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith four others.

6. He further submits that in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including applicant but when it was found that deceased sustained only one fire-arm injury then informant and witnesses changed the prosecution case mentioned in the FIR and started making allegation that fire opened by applicant hit the deceased and this fact clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident.

7. He further submits that during investigation, I.O. procured a CCTV Footage of the incident and however, in that footage, applicant was seen alongwith countrymade pistol but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that he opened fire upon the deceased.

8. He further submits that merely on the basis of presence of the applicant at spot alongwith countrymade pistol, it cannot be said that he was having either common object or any intention to commit the murder of the deceased alongwith other accused persons.

9. He further submits that from the earlier case of murder of the father of the informant, applicant was not having any concern and in that case, he was not even accused.

10. He further submits that applicant belongs to different community and therefore, he was not having any motive to commit the murder of the brother of the informant.

11. He further submits that only being one of the friend of co- accused Arman, he has been made accused in the present matter.

12. He further submits that however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and he is in jail in the present matter since 05.08.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant has been specifically named in the FIR and since beginning, he has been assigned the role of firing.

14. They further submit that during investigation when the statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded then they categorically stated that due to the firing made by the applicant, deceased died.

15. They further submit that after considering the CCTV Footage, the presence of the applicant at the place of incident alongwith country made pistol has been established and therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that he is innocent.

16. They further submit that it is a case in which one person lost his life and applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 103 B.N.S. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment and maximum punishment is capital punishment and therefore, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail.

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

18. Applicant is named in the FIR alongwith four others and as per the FIR, applicant and others opened fire due to which deceased i.e. brother of the informant sustained fire-arm injury and died. However, post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only one fire-arm injury but from the record, it also reflects that during investigation when the statements of eye-witnesses were recorded including the statement of informant then they categorically stated that due to the fire opened by the applicant, deceased sustained fire-arm injury and died.

19. Further, from the record, it also reflects that during investigation, I.O. procured CCTV Footage of the incident and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was present at spot alongwith countrymade pistol and considering all these facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that it cannot be said that applicant did not participate in the incident and he is innocent.

20. Further, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and evidence available against him on record, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant that at this stage it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail as he is facing trial for offence under Section 103 B.N.S. in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment and maximum punishment is capital punishment.

21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant - Anuj Yadav stands dismissed.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 11.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad