Sahir v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko

2. All the accused-applicants seek bail in FIR/Case Crime No.369 of 2024 under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(2), 249, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Hardi, District Bahraich.

3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that on 13.10.2024, the brother of the informant had gone to see the festival of idol immersion and in front of the home of one of the accused, all the accused were sitting, when the brother crossed the festival, he was pulled inside the home and was killed by inflicting firearm injury as well as the injury with the use of sword, which resulted in his death.

4. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant 3 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025 appearing on behalf of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir and the other co-accused argue that the persons who are not named in the FIR have been enlarged on bail vide separate orders. It is further argued on behalf of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir that no recovery of weapon was effected from the applicant. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is ante-mortem fire arm injury, which are eight in number and a lacerated wound was also found on the left eyebrow besides the deep burn injury on the toe.

5. It is also argue that the applicant is not the owner of the premises where the alleged offence was conducted and has a shop in front of the said house and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He further argues that even the alleged weapon used was not recovered from the applicant and none of the witness has named the applicant of having caused the offence as there are no eye witness to the incident. He further argues that all the fact witnesses have been examined and the applicant is in custody since 16.10.2024 have no criminal antecedents.

6. On behalf of other three accused namely Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, it is argued that the recovery of the weapon was effected at the instance and pointing out of one of the co-accused Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku and not from the applicants Mohamed Faheem & Abdul Hamid, as such, they should be enlarged on bail.

7. As regards the criminal antecedents, it is stated that the accused Abdul Hamid has criminal antecedents of two cases, which are minor offences and the other two co-accused Mohamed Faheem and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku have no criminal antecedents.

8. It is also further argued that in terms of the site plan, prepared, it is revealed that the victim had entered inside the home and was trying to replace the flag with the flag of 'Sanatan Dharm' after removing the green flag which was hoisted at the home of the applicants. In short, the submission is that the deceased had entered in the home and had replaced the flag and provoked the accused to commit the offence, which has been allegedly committed by them. 4 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025

9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the postmortem report indicates that the very gruesome offence was committed against the deceased which is corroborated by the nature of the injuries, however, the fact remains that no weapon was recovered at the instance and pointing out of the accused Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir and the property in question was also not owned by him. Thus, prima-facie, the material to link the applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir with the offence in question, prima-facie is weak, as such the accused applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir who is in custody since 16.10.2024 is entitled for the bail.

10. In view thereof the bail application of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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.

12. With regard to other three accused namely Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, the recovery memo was done after apprehending all the co-accused, although the recovery was effected at the instance and pointing out of the co-accused. All the co- accused were trying to flee to Nepal, as is evident from the recovery memo. The said three co-accused are also the owner of the property where the alleged offence was committed.

13. Thus, considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground for bail 5 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025 to accused Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, is made out. The bail applications of these three accused applicants are rejected. November 27, 2025 VNP/- (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. All the accused-applicants seek bail in FIR/Case Crime No.369 of 2024 under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(2), 249, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Hardi, District Bahraich.

3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that on 13.10.2024, the brother of the informant had gone to see the festival of idol immersion and in front of the home of one of the accused, all the accused were sitting, when the brother crossed the festival, he was pulled inside the home and was killed by inflicting firearm injury as well as the injury with the use of sword, which resulted in his death.

4. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant 3 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025 appearing on behalf of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir and the other co-accused argue that the persons who are not named in the FIR have been enlarged on bail vide separate orders. It is further argued on behalf of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir that no recovery of weapon was effected from the applicant. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is ante-mortem fire arm injury, which are eight in number and a lacerated wound was also found on the left eyebrow besides the deep burn injury on the toe.

5. It is also argue that the applicant is not the owner of the premises where the alleged offence was conducted and has a shop in front of the said house and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He further argues that even the alleged weapon used was not recovered from the applicant and none of the witness has named the applicant of having caused the offence as there are no eye witness to the incident. He further argues that all the fact witnesses have been examined and the applicant is in custody since 16.10.2024 have no criminal antecedents.

6. On behalf of other three accused namely Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, it is argued that the recovery of the weapon was effected at the instance and pointing out of one of the co-accused Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku and not from the applicants Mohamed Faheem & Abdul Hamid, as such, they should be enlarged on bail.

7. As regards the criminal antecedents, it is stated that the accused Abdul Hamid has criminal antecedents of two cases, which are minor offences and the other two co-accused Mohamed Faheem and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku have no criminal antecedents.

8. It is also further argued that in terms of the site plan, prepared, it is revealed that the victim had entered inside the home and was trying to replace the flag with the flag of 'Sanatan Dharm' after removing the green flag which was hoisted at the home of the applicants. In short, the submission is that the deceased had entered in the home and had replaced the flag and provoked the accused to commit the offence, which has been allegedly committed by them. 4 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025

9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the postmortem report indicates that the very gruesome offence was committed against the deceased which is corroborated by the nature of the injuries, however, the fact remains that no weapon was recovered at the instance and pointing out of the accused Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir and the property in question was also not owned by him. Thus, prima-facie, the material to link the applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir with the offence in question, prima-facie is weak, as such the accused applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir who is in custody since 16.10.2024 is entitled for the bail.

10. In view thereof the bail application of Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Mohammad Jishan @ Raja @ Sahir be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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.

12. With regard to other three accused namely Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, the recovery memo was done after apprehending all the co-accused, although the recovery was effected at the instance and pointing out of the co-accused. All the co- accused were trying to flee to Nepal, as is evident from the recovery memo. The said three co-accused are also the owner of the property where the alleged offence was committed.

13. Thus, considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground for bail 5 BAIL No. 10064 of 2025 to accused Mohamed Faheem, Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Rinku, is made out. The bail applications of these three accused applicants are rejected. November 27, 2025 VNP/- (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench