High Court · 2025

1. As, both the bail applications are arising out of same case crime number, therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Mnoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Sections 189(4), 103(1), 115(2), 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.08.2024 against applicants and three others and according to the FIR on 17.08.2024 co-accused Nitin has taken the brother of the informant from his house and thereafter he along with applicants and another accused Sundar after causing injury to his brother committed his murder.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that accused persons also caused injury to his uncle namely Vijay. It is further mentioned in the FIR that at the time of incident informant and one Sumit Bhati were also present at spot.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits, on the basis of totally false allegation, applicants have been made accused in the present matter along with three others and they never participated in the alleged incident.

7. He further submits, however, as per informant, he along with Sumit Bhati were also present at spot but statement of alleged eye witness Sumit Bhati was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 17.09.2024 i.e. after a month and this fact suggests that actually he was not an eye witness.

8. He further submits, however, informant claimed himself to be an eye witness but from the perusal of the FIR and his statement recorded during investigation, it could not be reflected that when co-accused Nitin was taking the deceased from his house then he also accompanied him, therefore, it appears, he was also not eye witness.

9. He further submits, as per prosecution, uncle of the informant namely Vijay is the injured witness and he was present at spot but surprisingly his statement was also recorded on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month.

10. He further submits, however, injured witness Vijay sustained injuries on around his Zygotic region but it is nowhere on record that he was not in a position to give the statement, therefore, no presumption can be drawn that earlier he was not in a position to give his statement and considering the fact that his statement was recorded after one month, it appears, he sustained injuries in some other manner and subsequently after the incident he was introduced as injured witness of the present case.

11. He further submits, however as per prosecution apart from the informant, injured Vijay and the above noted Sumit Bhati, two other persons were also eye witnesses but surprisingly their statements were also recorded on 16.09.2024, therefore, statements of all the eye witnesses except the informant were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and all these facts clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to the previous enmity on the basis of suspicion, informant implicated them in the FIR.

12. He further submits, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 28.08.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, it is a case in which one person sustained injury and one person lost his life and injured categorically stated that applicants along with others opened fire upon the deceased and deceased also sustained number of firearm injuries. They further submitted, apart from the injured, informant and three others were also the eye witnesses but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that except the statement of the informant statements of all the witnesses including injured were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and there is no explanation on record in this regard.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that however informant claimed himself to be the eye witness but even according to him co-accused Nitin has taken the deceased from his house and he never stated that he also accompanied them. They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history.

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

16. However, it is a case in which one person lost his life and one person sustained injuries and as per prosecution informant, injured and three others are eye witnesses but surprisingly the statements of the alleged injured and three others were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and there is no explanation in this regard, why their statements were recorded after one month.

17. Further, however, apart from the injured and other three witnesses informant himself claimed to be an eye witness but from the FIR and from his statement recorded during investigation it reflects that co-accused Nitin has taken the deceased from his house and thereafter applicants and other accused persons including co-accused Nitin committed his murder by making indiscriminate fire but it is nowhere on record which can suggests that how informant reached at spot as it is not the case of the prosecution that he also accompanied co-accused Nitin along with deceased, therefore, considering this fact at this stage, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and due to the enmity applicants have been made accused in the present matter, cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 28.08.2024.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

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

21. Let the applicants - Shekhar and Akash @ Alizan 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. 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 applicants.

23. 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 :- 23.1.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. As, both the bail applications are arising out of same case crime number, therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Mnoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Sections 189(4), 103(1), 115(2), 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 17.08.2024 against applicants and three others and according to the FIR on 17.08.2024 co-accused Nitin has taken the brother of the informant from his house and thereafter he along with applicants and another accused Sundar after causing injury to his brother committed his murder.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that accused persons also caused injury to his uncle namely Vijay. It is further mentioned in the FIR that at the time of incident informant and one Sumit Bhati were also present at spot.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits, on the basis of totally false allegation, applicants have been made accused in the present matter along with three others and they never participated in the alleged incident.

7. He further submits, however, as per informant, he along with Sumit Bhati were also present at spot but statement of alleged eye witness Sumit Bhati was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 17.09.2024 i.e. after a month and this fact suggests that actually he was not an eye witness.

8. He further submits, however, informant claimed himself to be an eye witness but from the perusal of the FIR and his statement recorded during investigation, it could not be reflected that when co-accused Nitin was taking the deceased from his house then he also accompanied him, therefore, it appears, he was also not eye witness.

9. He further submits, as per prosecution, uncle of the informant namely Vijay is the injured witness and he was present at spot but surprisingly his statement was also recorded on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month.

10. He further submits, however, injured witness Vijay sustained injuries on around his Zygotic region but it is nowhere on record that he was not in a position to give the statement, therefore, no presumption can be drawn that earlier he was not in a position to give his statement and considering the fact that his statement was recorded after one month, it appears, he sustained injuries in some other manner and subsequently after the incident he was introduced as injured witness of the present case.

11. He further submits, however as per prosecution apart from the informant, injured Vijay and the above noted Sumit Bhati, two other persons were also eye witnesses but surprisingly their statements were also recorded on 16.09.2024, therefore, statements of all the eye witnesses except the informant were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and all these facts clearly suggests that actually nobody could see the real incident and only due to the previous enmity on the basis of suspicion, informant implicated them in the FIR.

12. He further submits, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 28.08.2024.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, it is a case in which one person sustained injury and one person lost his life and injured categorically stated that applicants along with others opened fire upon the deceased and deceased also sustained number of firearm injuries. They further submitted, apart from the injured, informant and three others were also the eye witnesses but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that except the statement of the informant statements of all the witnesses including injured were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and there is no explanation on record in this regard.

14. They further could not dispute the fact that however informant claimed himself to be the eye witness but even according to him co-accused Nitin has taken the deceased from his house and he never stated that he also accompanied them. They further could not dispute the fact that applicants are not having any previous criminal history.

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

16. However, it is a case in which one person lost his life and one person sustained injuries and as per prosecution informant, injured and three others are eye witnesses but surprisingly the statements of the alleged injured and three others were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 16.09.2024 i.e. after a month and there is no explanation in this regard, why their statements were recorded after one month.

17. Further, however, apart from the injured and other three witnesses informant himself claimed to be an eye witness but from the FIR and from his statement recorded during investigation it reflects that co-accused Nitin has taken the deceased from his house and thereafter applicants and other accused persons including co-accused Nitin committed his murder by making indiscriminate fire but it is nowhere on record which can suggests that how informant reached at spot as it is not the case of the prosecution that he also accompanied co-accused Nitin along with deceased, therefore, considering this fact at this stage, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and due to the enmity applicants have been made accused in the present matter, cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 28.08.2024.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

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

21. Let the applicants - Shekhar and Akash @ Alizan 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. 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 applicants.

23. 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 :- 23.1.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad