High Court · 2025

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.09.2024 against applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, under Section 105 B.N.S. and according to the FIR, on 09.09.2024 at about 11:55 p.m. in the night when brother of the informant was going to temple then on the way, applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu met him and they were under intoxication and applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, who opened fire upon his brother due to which he sustained injury on his chest. It is further mentioned in the FIR that entire incident has been captured in CCTV. It is further mentioned in the FIR that during treatment brother of the informant died.

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

6. He further submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 105 B.N.S. but during investigation, case was converted under Section 103(1) B.N.S..

7. He further submits that however, entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false but even as per prosecution, applicant was not the person, who caused injury to the deceased and specific allegation of causing injury to the deceased has been made against to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu.

8. He further submits that however as per the informant entire incident was captured in CCTV but from perusal of the detail of the CCTV Footage, which has been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., it reflects, applicant was only present at spot alongwith co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, who committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submits that however, as per allegation when applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu then thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased but this fact could not be reflected from the CCTV Footage.

10. He further submits that admittedly informant was not an eye- witness but inspite of that with intention to implicate the applicant, he mentioned in the FIR that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and as he had already disclosed this fact in the FIR, therefore, during investigation when statements of alleged eye-witnesses were recorded then they also reiterated the version of the FIR.

11. He further submits that even from perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses, it reflects, they were chance witnesses.

12. He further submits that applicant is not having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.09.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, however co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu caused firearm injury to the deceased but he caused injury to the deceased from the countrymade pistol, which was handed over to him by the applicant and this fact is evident even from the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation.

14. They further submit, even from the CCTV Footage, it reflects, at the time of incident applicant was present at spot alongwith co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu but they could not dispute the fact that from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that applicant firstly handed over the coountrymade pistol to co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he made fire.

15. They further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, informant was not an eye-witness and all the alleged eye witnesses appear to be chance witnesses.

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

17. However, as per allegation, applicant handed over the countrymade pistol the the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he committed the murder of the brother of the informant and from the CCTV Footage, it reflects, applicant was present at spot alongwith co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that he handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu.

18. Further, it reflects, informant of the case was not an eye- witness but inspite of that he disclosed the fact that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as informant had earlier disclosed the fact that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu then thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, during investigation the alleged eye-witnesses started reiterating the version of the FIR but actually they were also not the eye-witnesses, cannot be ruled out at this stage specially considering the fact that all the alleged eye- witnesses appear to be chance witnesses.

19. Further, admittedly applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased.

20. Further, applicant is not having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.09.2024.

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

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

23. Let the applicant- Boby Raja Parmar Alias Bhupendra Singh, 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 11.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.09.2024 against applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, under Section 105 B.N.S. and according to the FIR, on 09.09.2024 at about 11:55 p.m. in the night when brother of the informant was going to temple then on the way, applicant and co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu met him and they were under intoxication and applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, who opened fire upon his brother due to which he sustained injury on his chest. It is further mentioned in the FIR that entire incident has been captured in CCTV. It is further mentioned in the FIR that during treatment brother of the informant died.

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

6. He further submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 105 B.N.S. but during investigation, case was converted under Section 103(1) B.N.S..

7. He further submits that however, entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false but even as per prosecution, applicant was not the person, who caused injury to the deceased and specific allegation of causing injury to the deceased has been made against to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu.

8. He further submits that however as per the informant entire incident was captured in CCTV but from perusal of the detail of the CCTV Footage, which has been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., it reflects, applicant was only present at spot alongwith co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu, who committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submits that however, as per allegation when applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu then thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased but this fact could not be reflected from the CCTV Footage.

10. He further submits that admittedly informant was not an eye- witness but inspite of that with intention to implicate the applicant, he mentioned in the FIR that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and as he had already disclosed this fact in the FIR, therefore, during investigation when statements of alleged eye-witnesses were recorded then they also reiterated the version of the FIR.

11. He further submits that even from perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses, it reflects, they were chance witnesses.

12. He further submits that applicant is not having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.09.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, however co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu caused firearm injury to the deceased but he caused injury to the deceased from the countrymade pistol, which was handed over to him by the applicant and this fact is evident even from the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation.

14. They further submit, even from the CCTV Footage, it reflects, at the time of incident applicant was present at spot alongwith co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu but they could not dispute the fact that from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that applicant firstly handed over the coountrymade pistol to co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he made fire.

15. They further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, informant was not an eye-witness and all the alleged eye witnesses appear to be chance witnesses.

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

17. However, as per allegation, applicant handed over the countrymade pistol the the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he committed the murder of the brother of the informant and from the CCTV Footage, it reflects, applicant was present at spot alongwith co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that he handed over the countrymade pistol to co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu.

18. Further, it reflects, informant of the case was not an eye- witness but inspite of that he disclosed the fact that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co-accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu and thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as informant had earlier disclosed the fact that applicant handed over the countrymade pistol to the co- accused Dhirendra Singh @ Hemu then thereafter he committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, during investigation the alleged eye-witnesses started reiterating the version of the FIR but actually they were also not the eye-witnesses, cannot be ruled out at this stage specially considering the fact that all the alleged eye- witnesses appear to be chance witnesses.

19. Further, admittedly applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased.

20. Further, applicant is not having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.09.2024.

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

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

23. Let the applicant- Boby Raja Parmar Alias Bhupendra Singh, 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 :- 11.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad