High Court · 2025

1. Sri Prashant Yadav, learned Advocate submits, actually he is counsel for the informant but his name has wrongly shown in the cause list as counsel for the applicant.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 34 IPC and 30 Arms Act, Police Station Jasrathpur, District Etah during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.03.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR on 25.03.2024 at about 5.00 PM in the evening applicant and others started opening fire upon the informant through licensed rifle and gun. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on the exhortation of the applicant, co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injury to Pradeep Kumar and other persons also opened fire due to which Rajeev Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that due to the firearm injury Pradeep Kumar died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR and from perusal of the FIR it reflects, role of firing has also been attributed to him but from the FIR it also reflects, on the exhortation of the applicant co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injuries to the deceased.

6. He further submits, from the FIR it also reflects, after exhortation of the applicant, other accused persons opened fire and due to the FIR opened by them, three persons also sustained injuries, therefore, from the FIR it reflects, applicant neither caused any injury to the deceased nor the injured and only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant.

7. He further submits, when the statements of injured persons were recorded then they stated that applicant and others opened fire but according to them applicant opened fire from rifle but neither injured nor deceased sustained any rifle injury and this fact suggests that actually applicant did not cause any injury either to deceased or to injured persons.

8. He further submits, applicant is 72 years old and there was absolutely no occasion for him to participate in the alleged incident. He further submits, even from the statement of injured persons, it reflects, initially he made only exhortation but subsequently these witnesses also assigned the role of firing to the applicant.

9. He further submits, informant who is although not injured witness but from the FIR it reflects, he was eye witness, therefore, there are material contradiction in the version of the FIR and statements of injured witnesses as far as role of applicant is concerned.

10. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.03.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted from the statements of injured witnesses, it reflects, applicant actively participated in the incident and he used rifle and all the injured and deceased sustained firearm injuries and whether they sustained injuries from rifle or not it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial and at this stage it is not proper to give any finding in this regard.

12. They further submitted that even from the FIR and statements of witnesses including statements of the informant and injured witnesses it cannot be said that applicant was not present at spot and his presence at spot is quite apparent and he also made exhortation and on his exhortation his sons came out from their house with respective weapons, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 149 IPC also applicant should not be released on bail.

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

14. From the FIR, it reflects, informant of the case is also one of the eye witness and according to the FIR applicant also opened fire, however, it is further mentioned in the FIR, on the exhortation of the applicant, co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injury to the deceased and thereafter other accused persons also opened fire due to which injured Rajeev Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries but from the statements of injured witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects, according to them applicant also opened fire and due to the fire opened by the applicant they sustained injuries.

15. Further, from their statements however it reflects, applicant opened fire from his licensed rifle and as per learned counsel for the applicant neither injured nor deceased sustained any rifle injuries but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant that at the stage of bail no definite finding in this regard can be given by this Court considering the fact that all the injured and deceased sustained firearm injuries.

16. Further, presence of the applicant at the place of incident cannot be doubted at this stage and from the statements of injured witnesses it also reflects that applicant made exhortation and thereafter his sons came out from their houses along with their respective weapons and thereafter incident occurred, therefore, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant that applicant cannot escape from the clutches of Section 149 IPC.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. 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. ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 10.3.2025 AK Pandey

1. Sri Prashant Yadav, learned Advocate submits, actually he is counsel for the informant but his name has wrongly shown in the cause list as counsel for the applicant.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 34 IPC and 30 Arms Act, Police Station Jasrathpur, District Etah during pendency of the trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.03.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR on 25.03.2024 at about 5.00 PM in the evening applicant and others started opening fire upon the informant through licensed rifle and gun. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on the exhortation of the applicant, co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injury to Pradeep Kumar and other persons also opened fire due to which Rajeev Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that due to the firearm injury Pradeep Kumar died.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR and from perusal of the FIR it reflects, role of firing has also been attributed to him but from the FIR it also reflects, on the exhortation of the applicant co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injuries to the deceased.

6. He further submits, from the FIR it also reflects, after exhortation of the applicant, other accused persons opened fire and due to the FIR opened by them, three persons also sustained injuries, therefore, from the FIR it reflects, applicant neither caused any injury to the deceased nor the injured and only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant.

7. He further submits, when the statements of injured persons were recorded then they stated that applicant and others opened fire but according to them applicant opened fire from rifle but neither injured nor deceased sustained any rifle injury and this fact suggests that actually applicant did not cause any injury either to deceased or to injured persons.

8. He further submits, applicant is 72 years old and there was absolutely no occasion for him to participate in the alleged incident. He further submits, even from the statement of injured persons, it reflects, initially he made only exhortation but subsequently these witnesses also assigned the role of firing to the applicant.

9. He further submits, informant who is although not injured witness but from the FIR it reflects, he was eye witness, therefore, there are material contradiction in the version of the FIR and statements of injured witnesses as far as role of applicant is concerned.

10. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.03.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted from the statements of injured witnesses, it reflects, applicant actively participated in the incident and he used rifle and all the injured and deceased sustained firearm injuries and whether they sustained injuries from rifle or not it can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial and at this stage it is not proper to give any finding in this regard.

12. They further submitted that even from the FIR and statements of witnesses including statements of the informant and injured witnesses it cannot be said that applicant was not present at spot and his presence at spot is quite apparent and he also made exhortation and on his exhortation his sons came out from their house with respective weapons, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 149 IPC also applicant should not be released on bail.

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

14. From the FIR, it reflects, informant of the case is also one of the eye witness and according to the FIR applicant also opened fire, however, it is further mentioned in the FIR, on the exhortation of the applicant, co-accused Dhirendra caused firearm injury to the deceased and thereafter other accused persons also opened fire due to which injured Rajeev Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries but from the statements of injured witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects, according to them applicant also opened fire and due to the fire opened by the applicant they sustained injuries.

15. Further, from their statements however it reflects, applicant opened fire from his licensed rifle and as per learned counsel for the applicant neither injured nor deceased sustained any rifle injuries but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant that at the stage of bail no definite finding in this regard can be given by this Court considering the fact that all the injured and deceased sustained firearm injuries.

16. Further, presence of the applicant at the place of incident cannot be doubted at this stage and from the statements of injured witnesses it also reflects that applicant made exhortation and thereafter his sons came out from their houses along with their respective weapons and thereafter incident occurred, therefore, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant that applicant cannot escape from the clutches of Section 149 IPC.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

19. 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. ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 10.3.2025 AK Pandey