State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home vs Party(s)

1.Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddharth Sinha and Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 8.9.2023 at about 5.45p.m. while the complainant went to attend the meeting called by Sumit Yadav via conferencing on the phone of Manoj Yadav and reached at the residence of Manoj Yadav behind Sarojani Nagar tehsil, at the given place, the co-accused Sumit Yadav, his uncle Vinod Yadav and two other persons having enmity were waiting for the complainant and with common intention started firing as soon as they saw the complainant. All were armed with weapons. The complainant suffered two bullet shots. He ran to save his life down stairs, then Vishambhar, co-accused who was in 2 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 Wagon R Car shot at the complainant. The complainant saved his life taking shelter in a house in the neighbourhood. The accused were chasing the complainant and were saying to kill him. The complainant is struggling with life and death in Medanta Hospital. Manoj Yadav is also injured in this case. He has sustained gun shot injury.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during investigation, name of the co-accused Ramesh Kashyap, Kapil Yadav and Sandeep Yadav has been added. Charge sheet has been submitted against six accused persons, including the applicant. The co-accused Vishambhar Dayal, Kapil Yadav, Ramesh Kashyap and Sandeep Yadav have been granted bail. The bail orders are on record. It is next submitted that according to the first information report, the complainant Kundan Singh Yadav has received three gun shot injuries fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishambhar. The complainant has given an affidavit to the investigating officer to the above effect that he received three gun shot injuries fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishambhar. The statement of the complainant as P.W.2 has been recorded in the trial court where he has stated that he received three gun shots fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishmbhar. It is submitted that the complainant Kundan Yadav had killed real brother of the applicant Kishan Chandra and nephew Dileep alias Bablu and also caused serious injury to the younger nephew of the applicant Sandeep Kumar Yadav with the help of his companions. The applicant is the eye witness of the incident. He has lodged the first information report of the incident against the complainant Kundan Singh Yadav and his companion at police station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow registered as case crime No.323 of 2025 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. The first information report is on record as Annexure No.12 to the bail application. It is submitted that Kundan singh Yadav is a hardened criminal and presently 19 cases have been registered against him. The complainant Kundan Singh has also confessed his guilt before the Juvenile Justice Board in case crime No.323/2015 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.c., P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. It is submitted that according to the 3 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 statement of Dr.Mustafa Firoz Singapurwala who medically examined the complainant on 8.9.2023, there were three gun shot injuries on the chest of Kundan Singh Yadav, however, no blackening was found around the injury. According to Dr. Mustafa, the bullet was fired from a distance of 7-8 feet. No bullet was found in the body of Kundan singh Yadav. He has stated that due to the bullet being fired at an angle, it might have exited. No exit wound was found on the body of Kundan Singh. the medical examination report has been filed as Annexure No.2 to the bail application. There is no incriminating article having been found either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The applicant was in his house at the time of the incident. The CCTV camera is installed in the house of the applicant. The investigating officer has taken the DVR from the house of the accused applicant. The applicant has annexed the photographs and pen drive containing footage taken out from the DVR installed at CCTV camera at the house of the applicant along with the supplementary affidavit dated 7.11.2024 as Annexures SA-5 and 6. Role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Vishambhar Dayal who has been granted bail. It is submitted that both the injured witnesses have been examined before the trial court. There is no chance of tampering the evidence or influencing the prosecution case. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since

26.10.2023.

4.Per contra, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. Mr. Murtaza submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence. The version of the informant is supported by statement of independent witnesses Shubham Yadav and Prabhakar Yadav. Plea of alibi regarding CCTV footage is of no benefit to the applicant as during investigation, it was found that recording of the date on which the incident had taken place is missing from the CCTV camera itself. It is submitted that empty cartridges, live cartridges and blood samples have been collected from the place of the incident. The prosecution case is corroborated by medical report of Kundan Singh Yadav and another 4 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 injured Manoj Yadav. The independent witnesses Vikas and Hemlata Yadav have supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial court has recorded that the accused persons have not cooperated in cross examination of P.W.1 on few dates and they are delaying the trial. The complainant Kundan Singh Yadav has filed an exemption application dated 4.7.2025.

5.I have considered the submission and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that two injured namely Kundan Singh Yadav and Manoj Kumar Yadav have sustained following fire arm injuries:- "Three wound present on the anterior chest wall of Kundan Singh Yadav (i) 1 wound (2 cm x 0.5 cm) on the lower chest in Centre. (ii) 1 wound (3cm x 0.5 cm) on the lower chest near middle of left side. (iii) 1 small circular wound of 1 cm size. Four injuries sustained by Manoj Kumar Yadav. (i) (SLAB DONE OUTSIDE) present in right upper limb, below right shoulder joint, covering right elbow and right writ joint. (ii) 3 Abrasions present, each approx. 1 x 1 cm in right hypochondriac region (iii) Entry wound present in right hypochondriac region. (iv) Single entry wound present in right approx 5mm diameter on lateral aspect."

6.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the incident was executed, perusal of the order sheet of the trial court along with the observations recorded therein, particularly in the orders dated

04.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 05.02.2025, and 18.02.2025, reflect non- cooperation and delaying tactics adopted by the defence during the examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, coupled with the fact that the independent witnesses as well as the injured witnesses have duly corroborated the prosecution version, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024

7.Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. December 19, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddharth Sinha and Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 8.9.2023 at about 5.45p.m. while the complainant went to attend the meeting called by Sumit Yadav via conferencing on the phone of Manoj Yadav and reached at the residence of Manoj Yadav behind Sarojani Nagar tehsil, at the given place, the co-accused Sumit Yadav, his uncle Vinod Yadav and two other persons having enmity were waiting for the complainant and with common intention started firing as soon as they saw the complainant. All were armed with weapons. The complainant suffered two bullet shots. He ran to save his life down stairs, then Vishambhar, co-accused who was in 2 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 Wagon R Car shot at the complainant. The complainant saved his life taking shelter in a house in the neighbourhood. The accused were chasing the complainant and were saying to kill him. The complainant is struggling with life and death in Medanta Hospital. Manoj Yadav is also injured in this case. He has sustained gun shot injury.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during investigation, name of the co-accused Ramesh Kashyap, Kapil Yadav and Sandeep Yadav has been added. Charge sheet has been submitted against six accused persons, including the applicant. The co-accused Vishambhar Dayal, Kapil Yadav, Ramesh Kashyap and Sandeep Yadav have been granted bail. The bail orders are on record. It is next submitted that according to the first information report, the complainant Kundan Singh Yadav has received three gun shot injuries fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishambhar. The complainant has given an affidavit to the investigating officer to the above effect that he received three gun shot injuries fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishambhar. The statement of the complainant as P.W.2 has been recorded in the trial court where he has stated that he received three gun shots fired by Sumit Yadav, Vinod Yadav and Vishmbhar. It is submitted that the complainant Kundan Yadav had killed real brother of the applicant Kishan Chandra and nephew Dileep alias Bablu and also caused serious injury to the younger nephew of the applicant Sandeep Kumar Yadav with the help of his companions. The applicant is the eye witness of the incident. He has lodged the first information report of the incident against the complainant Kundan Singh Yadav and his companion at police station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow registered as case crime No.323 of 2025 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. The first information report is on record as Annexure No.12 to the bail application. It is submitted that Kundan singh Yadav is a hardened criminal and presently 19 cases have been registered against him. The complainant Kundan Singh has also confessed his guilt before the Juvenile Justice Board in case crime No.323/2015 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.c., P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. It is submitted that according to the 3 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 statement of Dr.Mustafa Firoz Singapurwala who medically examined the complainant on 8.9.2023, there were three gun shot injuries on the chest of Kundan Singh Yadav, however, no blackening was found around the injury. According to Dr. Mustafa, the bullet was fired from a distance of 7-8 feet. No bullet was found in the body of Kundan singh Yadav. He has stated that due to the bullet being fired at an angle, it might have exited. No exit wound was found on the body of Kundan Singh. the medical examination report has been filed as Annexure No.2 to the bail application. There is no incriminating article having been found either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The applicant was in his house at the time of the incident. The CCTV camera is installed in the house of the applicant. The investigating officer has taken the DVR from the house of the accused applicant. The applicant has annexed the photographs and pen drive containing footage taken out from the DVR installed at CCTV camera at the house of the applicant along with the supplementary affidavit dated 7.11.2024 as Annexures SA-5 and 6. Role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused Vishambhar Dayal who has been granted bail. It is submitted that both the injured witnesses have been examined before the trial court. There is no chance of tampering the evidence or influencing the prosecution case. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since

26.10.2023.

4.Per contra, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail. Mr. Murtaza submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence. The version of the informant is supported by statement of independent witnesses Shubham Yadav and Prabhakar Yadav. Plea of alibi regarding CCTV footage is of no benefit to the applicant as during investigation, it was found that recording of the date on which the incident had taken place is missing from the CCTV camera itself. It is submitted that empty cartridges, live cartridges and blood samples have been collected from the place of the incident. The prosecution case is corroborated by medical report of Kundan Singh Yadav and another 4 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024 injured Manoj Yadav. The independent witnesses Vikas and Hemlata Yadav have supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial court has recorded that the accused persons have not cooperated in cross examination of P.W.1 on few dates and they are delaying the trial. The complainant Kundan Singh Yadav has filed an exemption application dated 4.7.2025.

5.I have considered the submission and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that two injured namely Kundan Singh Yadav and Manoj Kumar Yadav have sustained following fire arm injuries:- "Three wound present on the anterior chest wall of Kundan Singh Yadav (i) 1 wound (2 cm x 0.5 cm) on the lower chest in Centre. (ii) 1 wound (3cm x 0.5 cm) on the lower chest near middle of left side. (iii) 1 small circular wound of 1 cm size. Four injuries sustained by Manoj Kumar Yadav. (i) (SLAB DONE OUTSIDE) present in right upper limb, below right shoulder joint, covering right elbow and right writ joint. (ii) 3 Abrasions present, each approx. 1 x 1 cm in right hypochondriac region (iii) Entry wound present in right hypochondriac region. (iv) Single entry wound present in right approx 5mm diameter on lateral aspect."

6.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the incident was executed, perusal of the order sheet of the trial court along with the observations recorded therein, particularly in the orders dated

04.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 05.02.2025, and 18.02.2025, reflect non- cooperation and delaying tactics adopted by the defence during the examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, coupled with the fact that the independent witnesses as well as the injured witnesses have duly corroborated the prosecution version, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5 BAIL No. 11848 of 2024

7.Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. December 19, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench