Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40884 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37765 of 2024 Applicant :- Riyasat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Shyam Babu Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avesh Mishra,G.A.,Paritosh Sukla Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Shyam Babu Vaish, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Paritosh Sukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith several others including co-accused Akhlaq and from the FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects that the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been attributed to co-accused Akhlaq. 4. He further submitted that post mortem report of the deceased suggests that he died due to single fire arm injury. 5. He further submitted that alongwith the applicant, however, Rashid and Aftab were also made accused and bail application of Rashid has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he was also having one other criminal history and however, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case, apart from the present case but applicant resided more than 80 km away from the place of incident and he was not present at the place of incident rather he was present around his house. He next submits, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a personal affidavit was filed by the S.P. concerned and from the personal affidavit filed by the S.P. concerned, it reflects, when inqury was made then this fact was found true that applicant was not present at spot rather he was present in the area of his residence and considering this fact, it is apparent that applicant has been falsely made accused in the present matter and therefore, his bail application should not be dismissed in the light of the order passed in case of co-accused Rashid. 6. 6. He further submitted that applicant in jail in the present matter since 10.6.2024 i.e. for last more than 8 months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, however, opposed the prayer and submitted that bail application of Rashid has already been dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he also involved in making assault upon the son of the deceased and as applicant also one of the accused alongwith him in that case, therefore, applicant should also be not released on bail but they could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the bail application of the co-accused Rashid when by the order of this Court an inquiry was conducted about the presence of the applicant at the place of incident then it was found that he was not present at the place of incident. 8. They further could not dispute the fact that role of causing injury has been specifically attributed to the co-accused Akhlaq. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than 8 months. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased but from the record it reflects that role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has been assigned to co- accused Akhlaq. 12. Further, from the personal affidavit filed by the S.P. concerned, it reflects that on inquiry it was found that applicant was not present at spot and he was present in the area of his residence which was about 80 km far from the place of his residence. 13. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Rashid has been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the fact that he also involved in the case of making assault on the son of the deceased and from the record, it also reflects that applicant also involved in that case alongwith him but considering the fact that prima facie, it appears, presence of applicant at the place of incident appears to be doubtful, it is not proper to withheld the bail application of applicant. 14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than 8 months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant-Riyasat, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad