High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Kartikay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Saleem @ Sallee @ Thanda) is languishing in jail since 20.06.2024 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.204 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 286, 506, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. (Sections 191, (2) /191 (3)/ 190/103 (1), 115 (2) / 109/288/351 (2) & (3)/3 (5), 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), Section 7 CLA Act, 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Leelapur, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegations have been levelled against the five accused persons including the present applicant. During course of investigation, one fact surfaced that specific role to kill the deceased has been attributed to Shahrukh Khan. However, the general role of firing has been levelled against other co-accused persons. As per the prosecution story, the other co-accused persons were making fire but the main accused Sharukh Khan has fired upon the temple of the victim (since deceased) and on account of such firearm injury, the victim died.

5. Further attention has been drawn towards the bail order dated 10.06.2025 granted by this Court in favour of co-accused Sohel in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5239 of 2025; Sohel vs. State. So far as the role of the present applicant and the co- accused, Sohel is concerned, the same is similar but on the alleged pointing out of the present applicant one firearm has been recovered from his possession.

6. However, Sri Kartikay Singh has stated that recovery of such firearm is false and misconceived. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed parity by submitting that on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may also be released on bail. On account of this case, one case under gangster act has been imposed against the present applicant, however, there is no other criminal history against the present applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is going on. The statement of PW-1 has been recorded. Therefore, in the given circumstances, there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime and one firearm has been recovered on his pointing out, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the co-accused, namely, Sohel has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 (supra); the general role of firing has been levelled to the present applicant; main accused Shahrukh Khan has killed the victim; there is no criminal history against the present applicant; the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is going on and statement of PW-1 has been recorded; the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Saleem @ Sallee @ Thanda) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Kartikay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Saleem @ Sallee @ Thanda) is languishing in jail since 20.06.2024 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.204 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307, 286, 506, 34 and 120-B I.P.C. (Sections 191, (2) /191 (3)/ 190/103 (1), 115 (2) / 109/288/351 (2) & (3)/3 (5), 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), Section 7 CLA Act, 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Leelapur, District-Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegations have been levelled against the five accused persons including the present applicant. During course of investigation, one fact surfaced that specific role to kill the deceased has been attributed to Shahrukh Khan. However, the general role of firing has been levelled against other co-accused persons. As per the prosecution story, the other co-accused persons were making fire but the main accused Sharukh Khan has fired upon the temple of the victim (since deceased) and on account of such firearm injury, the victim died.

5. Further attention has been drawn towards the bail order dated 10.06.2025 granted by this Court in favour of co-accused Sohel in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5239 of 2025; Sohel vs. State. So far as the role of the present applicant and the co- accused, Sohel is concerned, the same is similar but on the alleged pointing out of the present applicant one firearm has been recovered from his possession.

6. However, Sri Kartikay Singh has stated that recovery of such firearm is false and misconceived. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed parity by submitting that on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may also be released on bail. On account of this case, one case under gangster act has been imposed against the present applicant, however, there is no other criminal history against the present applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is going on. The statement of PW-1 has been recorded. Therefore, in the given circumstances, there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime and one firearm has been recovered on his pointing out, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the co-accused, namely, Sohel has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 (supra); the general role of firing has been levelled to the present applicant; main accused Shahrukh Khan has killed the victim; there is no criminal history against the present applicant; the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is going on and statement of PW-1 has been recorded; the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant (Saleem @ Sallee @ Thanda) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

11. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench