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

alleged that Ajeet came firing from double barrel 12 bore gun in the lane along with two other persons and kept on firing. On the other side of the lane, Dhirendra Singh armed with danda and pistol came and also started firing on them. Somehow, the son and nephew of the complainant saved their life. Both have suffered injuries. Bystanders of the market have also suffered injuries.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the incident, none from the complainant side has been injured. On the contrary, injury has been received by Ashok Singh, Dhirendra Singh (applicant) and Ajeet. Ashok singh has received grievous injuries. He remained admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli from 15.8.2025 to 3.9.2025. The injury report of the injured accused is on record. The other two accused, namely Dhirendra Singh (applicant) and Ajeet have also received injuries. Their injury report is also on record. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ashok Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 by this Court passed 2 BAIL No. 12865 of 2025 in Bail Application No.10469. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4.Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the co-accused Ajeet has been seen firing in the CCTV footage. However, he fairly admits that no one is injured from the complainant side; rather five bystanders have received pellet injuries which are simple injuries. The complainant's counsel could not dispute the argument advanced by learned A.G.A.

5.I have considered the submission and perused the record as also injury reports of injured accused applicant and the two co-accused Ashok Singh and Ajeet. The fact that none from the complainant side has been injured is not disputed. Simple injuries have been received by bystanders. Prima facie, grievous injuries received by the co-accused have not been mentioned while lodging the first information report. Thus, true and correct version of the prosecution case does not appear to have been brought on record whiling lodging the first information report.

6.Keeping all what has been discussed hereinabove as also the fact that no one is injured from complainant side, injuries received by the co-accused who remained admitted for more than 15 days in the hospital, role assigned to the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, ground of parity with the bail order of co-accused Ashok Singh, the period for which the applicant is in jail, the judgment in Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Dhirendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No.218 of 2025 under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS (Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 504 I.P.C.) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Harchandpur, district Raebareli, be released on bail on his 3 BAIL No. 12865 of 2025 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 under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

8.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. December 18, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

alleged that Ajeet came firing from double barrel 12 bore gun in the lane along with two other persons and kept on firing. On the other side of the lane, Dhirendra Singh armed with danda and pistol came and also started firing on them. Somehow, the son and nephew of the complainant saved their life. Both have suffered injuries. Bystanders of the market have also suffered injuries.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the incident, none from the complainant side has been injured. On the contrary, injury has been received by Ashok Singh, Dhirendra Singh (applicant) and Ajeet. Ashok singh has received grievous injuries. He remained admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli from 15.8.2025 to 3.9.2025. The injury report of the injured accused is on record. The other two accused, namely Dhirendra Singh (applicant) and Ajeet have also received injuries. Their injury report is also on record. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ashok Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 by this Court passed 2 BAIL No. 12865 of 2025 in Bail Application No.10469. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4.Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the co-accused Ajeet has been seen firing in the CCTV footage. However, he fairly admits that no one is injured from the complainant side; rather five bystanders have received pellet injuries which are simple injuries. The complainant's counsel could not dispute the argument advanced by learned A.G.A.

5.I have considered the submission and perused the record as also injury reports of injured accused applicant and the two co-accused Ashok Singh and Ajeet. The fact that none from the complainant side has been injured is not disputed. Simple injuries have been received by bystanders. Prima facie, grievous injuries received by the co-accused have not been mentioned while lodging the first information report. Thus, true and correct version of the prosecution case does not appear to have been brought on record whiling lodging the first information report.

6.Keeping all what has been discussed hereinabove as also the fact that no one is injured from complainant side, injuries received by the co-accused who remained admitted for more than 15 days in the hospital, role assigned to the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, ground of parity with the bail order of co-accused Ashok Singh, the period for which the applicant is in jail, the judgment in Lakshmi Singh and others versus State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Dhirendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No.218 of 2025 under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS (Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 506, 504 I.P.C.) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Harchandpur, district Raebareli, be released on bail on his 3 BAIL No. 12865 of 2025 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 under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

8.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. December 18, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench