High Court · 2025

been assigned the specific role of firing upon the injured. The statement of the injured is corroborated by the medical evidence, including the doctor’s testimony and the injury report, which notes blackening around the entry wound. On the basis of these considerations, the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected. The operative portion of the rejection order reads as under: "7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that specific role of firing a gun shot towards the injured- Sanjay Yadav has been assigned to the instant applicant. The injury report of the injured would reveal that he has sustained entry wound on his right side of lower chest with a corresponding wound of exit. The injured in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has identified the applicant as the person, who had fired gun shot towards him. During the course of investigation, the statement of doctor, who has examined the injuries of the injured was also recorded and he has stated that the applicant was hit with a gun shot and the seat of the injury was at lower right chest area and the entry wound was also surrounded by blackening. Thus, having regard to the statement of the injured, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the bail application moved on behalf of applicant - Naziruddin Beg @ Inibuddin @ Pahalwan is hereby rejected.

8. However, it is provided that if the trial is not concluded within eight months from today or even sufficient progress is not made i.e. all the witnesses of fact are not recorded, the applicant may approach this Court again for renewal of his prayer of bail.

9. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case." While rejecting the bail application as is evident from the aforesaid order, it was provided that in case the trial is not concluded within eight months or sufficient progress is not made i.e. all the witness of fact are not examined, the applicant was granted liberty to revive his bail plea. The report of the learned court below is on record which shows that the trial is still at the stage of committal and it has not commenced yet. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, has held in paragraph 17:- "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." From perusal of the record, it is evident that no incriminating article such as empty or live cartridges or the weapon of assault was recovered from the crime scene. Taking into consideration that the trial has not yet commenced, the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2023, the possibility of an early conclusion of the trial appears unlikely, and applicant's indefinite detention is unwarranted, coupled with the principles laid down in "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra)"; the applicant's explanation regarding a single criminal case; the absence of any case against him in the last 27 years and on the contrary, the injured is having a criminal history of more than 12 cases (as stated in paras 13 and 14 of the bail application), I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Naziruddin Beg @ Inibuddin @ Pahalwan involved in Case Crime No.38 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 120-B/ 34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Ayodhya/ Faizabad, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

been assigned the specific role of firing upon the injured. The statement of the injured is corroborated by the medical evidence, including the doctor’s testimony and the injury report, which notes blackening around the entry wound. On the basis of these considerations, the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected. The operative portion of the rejection order reads as under: "7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that specific role of firing a gun shot towards the injured- Sanjay Yadav has been assigned to the instant applicant. The injury report of the injured would reveal that he has sustained entry wound on his right side of lower chest with a corresponding wound of exit. The injured in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has identified the applicant as the person, who had fired gun shot towards him. During the course of investigation, the statement of doctor, who has examined the injuries of the injured was also recorded and he has stated that the applicant was hit with a gun shot and the seat of the injury was at lower right chest area and the entry wound was also surrounded by blackening. Thus, having regard to the statement of the injured, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the bail application moved on behalf of applicant - Naziruddin Beg @ Inibuddin @ Pahalwan is hereby rejected.

8. However, it is provided that if the trial is not concluded within eight months from today or even sufficient progress is not made i.e. all the witnesses of fact are not recorded, the applicant may approach this Court again for renewal of his prayer of bail.

9. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case." While rejecting the bail application as is evident from the aforesaid order, it was provided that in case the trial is not concluded within eight months or sufficient progress is not made i.e. all the witness of fact are not examined, the applicant was granted liberty to revive his bail plea. The report of the learned court below is on record which shows that the trial is still at the stage of committal and it has not commenced yet. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, has held in paragraph 17:- "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." From perusal of the record, it is evident that no incriminating article such as empty or live cartridges or the weapon of assault was recovered from the crime scene. Taking into consideration that the trial has not yet commenced, the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2023, the possibility of an early conclusion of the trial appears unlikely, and applicant's indefinite detention is unwarranted, coupled with the principles laid down in "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra)"; the applicant's explanation regarding a single criminal case; the absence of any case against him in the last 27 years and on the contrary, the injured is having a criminal history of more than 12 cases (as stated in paras 13 and 14 of the bail application), I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Naziruddin Beg @ Inibuddin @ Pahalwan involved in Case Crime No.38 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 120-B/ 34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Ayodhya/ Faizabad, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench