High Court · 2025

F.I.R. lodged on 25.06.2022 against (i) Firdaus (the applicant), (ii) Bittu Jaiswal, and (iii) Priyanka Devi stating that three persons knocked the door of the informant's house at about

12.30 p.m. on 25.06.2022 and introduced themselves as police persons. The private security guards employed in security of the informant's husband opened the door. All three persons locked up the informant, three private guards and two children inside the room and they shot at the informant's husband. The informant had heard sound of two gun shots. When a tenant residing at the upper floor of the house opened the room the informant came out and saw that her husband was bleeding from his mouth and head. He was taken to the Civil Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. The informant stated that the incident was given effect to at the behest of her husband's first wife co-accused Priyanka and other two accused persons. She further stated that co-accused Priyanka had left her husband's house about 15 months ago and she married some other person. She further stated that the applicant had shot at the informant's husband in the year 2019 also.

4. The postmortem examination report mentions that the deceased had suffered 3 gun shot injuries, one of the bullets had crossed and gone out of the body and two bullets were recovered in the postmortem examination.

5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she reiterated the F.I.R. version. She further stated that her husband was engaged in taking contracts of tempo stand, bus stand and contracts of other similar nature and several cases regarding murder, robbery and extortion were lodged against him. The informant's father was involved with her husband in extracting money from the persons. She stated that after the deceased's wife Priyanka had left him she started staying with him as his wife. She further stated that due to an old animosity the applicant and his accomplices had shot at the deceased in the year 2019 also.

6. The persons who were working as private security guards in the house of the informant stated before the Investigating Officer that four assailants had come to the house of the victim. All four of them had illicit pistols with them. They locked up all the three private guards, the informant and her children inside a room. When the tenant opened the house after the incident, all the three guards left the city due to fear.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 14 other criminal cases has been disclosed in the affidavit, in 9 of which he has already been granted bail. In F.I.R. No.400 of 2019 lodged at Police Station Charbagh, Lucknow under Section 307 I.P.C. which is referred to in the present F.I.R., the applicant was not named as an accused person. His name came to light during investigation and a charge sheet has been filed against him.

8. Besides the applicant, five other persons have been made accused in the present case and all of them have been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the bail application.

9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith the copies of the relevant extracts of case diary, wherein it is recorded that the footage of CCTV camera installed in a house about two hindered meters away from the place of occurrence was observed wherein four persons were seen. The sister of the deceased has stated that she had watched the CCTV footage in which all the four persons including the applicant could be identified.

10. The accused persons are said to have stayed in a hotel but the hotel manager had stated that he had given the room on the recommendation of one Manjar and none of the accused persons had given their identity proof. Although the manager stated that their images are available in the CCTV camera installed in the hotel, the CCTV footage from the hotel has not been made a part of the case diary.

11. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application annexing therewith the materials collected during investigation as well as the copy of the charge sheet and nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit about the footage of CCTV camera installed in the hotel.

12. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the State but it is also silent regarding the CCTV footage of hotel.

13. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident took place inside the victim's house where three security guards were present and none of them has identified the applicant; that the applicant is said to have involved in hatching conspiracy for commission of the offence along with two other persons and both the other persons alleged to be hatched the conspiracy, have already been granted bail; that the alleged assailants have also been granted bail where as the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

14. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

15. Let the applicant-Firdaus Akhtar @ Shadab Akhtar 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

F.I.R. lodged on 25.06.2022 against (i) Firdaus (the applicant), (ii) Bittu Jaiswal, and (iii) Priyanka Devi stating that three persons knocked the door of the informant's house at about

12.30 p.m. on 25.06.2022 and introduced themselves as police persons. The private security guards employed in security of the informant's husband opened the door. All three persons locked up the informant, three private guards and two children inside the room and they shot at the informant's husband. The informant had heard sound of two gun shots. When a tenant residing at the upper floor of the house opened the room the informant came out and saw that her husband was bleeding from his mouth and head. He was taken to the Civil Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. The informant stated that the incident was given effect to at the behest of her husband's first wife co-accused Priyanka and other two accused persons. She further stated that co-accused Priyanka had left her husband's house about 15 months ago and she married some other person. She further stated that the applicant had shot at the informant's husband in the year 2019 also.

4. The postmortem examination report mentions that the deceased had suffered 3 gun shot injuries, one of the bullets had crossed and gone out of the body and two bullets were recovered in the postmortem examination.

5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she reiterated the F.I.R. version. She further stated that her husband was engaged in taking contracts of tempo stand, bus stand and contracts of other similar nature and several cases regarding murder, robbery and extortion were lodged against him. The informant's father was involved with her husband in extracting money from the persons. She stated that after the deceased's wife Priyanka had left him she started staying with him as his wife. She further stated that due to an old animosity the applicant and his accomplices had shot at the deceased in the year 2019 also.

6. The persons who were working as private security guards in the house of the informant stated before the Investigating Officer that four assailants had come to the house of the victim. All four of them had illicit pistols with them. They locked up all the three private guards, the informant and her children inside a room. When the tenant opened the house after the incident, all the three guards left the city due to fear.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 14 other criminal cases has been disclosed in the affidavit, in 9 of which he has already been granted bail. In F.I.R. No.400 of 2019 lodged at Police Station Charbagh, Lucknow under Section 307 I.P.C. which is referred to in the present F.I.R., the applicant was not named as an accused person. His name came to light during investigation and a charge sheet has been filed against him.

8. Besides the applicant, five other persons have been made accused in the present case and all of them have been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the bail application.

9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith the copies of the relevant extracts of case diary, wherein it is recorded that the footage of CCTV camera installed in a house about two hindered meters away from the place of occurrence was observed wherein four persons were seen. The sister of the deceased has stated that she had watched the CCTV footage in which all the four persons including the applicant could be identified.

10. The accused persons are said to have stayed in a hotel but the hotel manager had stated that he had given the room on the recommendation of one Manjar and none of the accused persons had given their identity proof. Although the manager stated that their images are available in the CCTV camera installed in the hotel, the CCTV footage from the hotel has not been made a part of the case diary.

11. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application annexing therewith the materials collected during investigation as well as the copy of the charge sheet and nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit about the footage of CCTV camera installed in the hotel.

12. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the State but it is also silent regarding the CCTV footage of hotel.

13. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the incident took place inside the victim's house where three security guards were present and none of them has identified the applicant; that the applicant is said to have involved in hatching conspiracy for commission of the offence along with two other persons and both the other persons alleged to be hatched the conspiracy, have already been granted bail; that the alleged assailants have also been granted bail where as the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

14. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

15. Let the applicant-Firdaus Akhtar @ Shadab Akhtar 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)