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

: Shesh Mani, Amit Kumar Dubey, Ashish Kumar, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shaista Parveen Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA are present. The order sheet indicates that on 22.01.2025, the case was adjourned on account of the illness slip submitted by learned counsel for the complainant, and thereafter the matter could not be taken up. Accordingly, the Court is now proceeding to decide the application. As per the prosecution version in the First Information Report, due to an old rivalry, the applicant/accused along with four other co-accused, who are neighbours of the informant, allegedly came to the informant’s house armed with sticks. It is further alleged that the applicant was carrying a pistol. After entering the house, they allegedly assaulted the informant’s father, Santosh Kumar, and mother, Bitola Devi, and began breaking and throwing household items. It is also alleged that with the intention to kill, the applicant fired a shot at the informant’s father, but the bullet narrowly missed his head. On hearing the commotion, the informant and others raised an alarm, upon which nearby persons arrived and intervened. The accused and the co- accused allegedly brandished the pistol, threatened to kill the family, stating that they had been saved this time but would not be spared in the future, and fled while waving the pistol. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the injured witness 2 BAIL No. 12012 of 2024 has attributed only a general role of assault to all five named accused persons and no specific role to the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 18.04.2024. His criminal antecedents involving 11 cases have been explained in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted that the trial has not commenced till date. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant and co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant’s father and mother. No firearm injury has been sustained by any injured person. Shiv Kumar Yadav sustained two lacerated wounds and two complaints of pain, and an X-ray of the ulna bone revealed a fracture. Injuries No. 3 and 4 are grievous. The other injured, Bitola Devi, sustained five injuries. Injury No. 2 required an X-ray, while the remaining injuries are simple. An ulna fracture was also found in her case. She did not sustain any injury on a vital part of the body. No firearm injury has been reported in respect of any injured person. Considering the general nature of allegations in the prosecution case; the fact that co-accused Lallu Prasad Yadav and Ram Kumar Yadav have already been granted bail by the learned court below (Annexure No. 5 to the bail application); the applicant’s case being similar to that of the bailed-out co- accused; the applicant’s incarceration since 18.04.2024; and in light of the law laid down in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Shiv Kumar @ Shiva involved in Case Crime No.0020 of 2024, U/S 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 34, 307, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Delhupur, Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a 3 BAIL No. 12012 of 2024 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 bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 14, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

: Shesh Mani, Amit Kumar Dubey, Ashish Kumar, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shaista Parveen Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA are present. The order sheet indicates that on 22.01.2025, the case was adjourned on account of the illness slip submitted by learned counsel for the complainant, and thereafter the matter could not be taken up. Accordingly, the Court is now proceeding to decide the application. As per the prosecution version in the First Information Report, due to an old rivalry, the applicant/accused along with four other co-accused, who are neighbours of the informant, allegedly came to the informant’s house armed with sticks. It is further alleged that the applicant was carrying a pistol. After entering the house, they allegedly assaulted the informant’s father, Santosh Kumar, and mother, Bitola Devi, and began breaking and throwing household items. It is also alleged that with the intention to kill, the applicant fired a shot at the informant’s father, but the bullet narrowly missed his head. On hearing the commotion, the informant and others raised an alarm, upon which nearby persons arrived and intervened. The accused and the co- accused allegedly brandished the pistol, threatened to kill the family, stating that they had been saved this time but would not be spared in the future, and fled while waving the pistol. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the injured witness 2 BAIL No. 12012 of 2024 has attributed only a general role of assault to all five named accused persons and no specific role to the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 18.04.2024. His criminal antecedents involving 11 cases have been explained in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted that the trial has not commenced till date. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant and co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant’s father and mother. No firearm injury has been sustained by any injured person. Shiv Kumar Yadav sustained two lacerated wounds and two complaints of pain, and an X-ray of the ulna bone revealed a fracture. Injuries No. 3 and 4 are grievous. The other injured, Bitola Devi, sustained five injuries. Injury No. 2 required an X-ray, while the remaining injuries are simple. An ulna fracture was also found in her case. She did not sustain any injury on a vital part of the body. No firearm injury has been reported in respect of any injured person. Considering the general nature of allegations in the prosecution case; the fact that co-accused Lallu Prasad Yadav and Ram Kumar Yadav have already been granted bail by the learned court below (Annexure No. 5 to the bail application); the applicant’s case being similar to that of the bailed-out co- accused; the applicant’s incarceration since 18.04.2024; and in light of the law laid down in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Shiv Kumar @ Shiva involved in Case Crime No.0020 of 2024, U/S 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 34, 307, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Delhupur, Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a 3 BAIL No. 12012 of 2024 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 bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 14, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench