Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11763 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45668 of 2024 Applicant :- Vivek Shukla Alias Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Vaishya Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Vaishya, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 609 of 2024, S.T. No.909 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 115(2), 117(2) B.N.S., Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.09.2024 against applicant and four others and according to the FIR due to the dispute of water co-accused Mukesh Shukla and Sarvesh Shukla opened fire from their respective weapons and fire opened by Mukesh Shukla hit the father of the informant and thereafter applicant along with other co-accused persons made assault through sharp edge weapon and wooden stick upon the informant side and due to the assault made by them four persons sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when father of the informant has taken to the hospital then doctor declared him dead. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and admittedly deceased died due to single firearm injury which has been specifically attributed to co-accused Mukesh Shukla and there is no allegation that applicant caused any injury to the deceased. 5. He further submits, on the basis of general allegation that applicant along with others also made assault upon the injured, he has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits, however, in the present matter apart from the deceased four persons sustained injuries but their injuries were not dangerous to life and as applicant cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased, therefore, at the worst he can be prosecuted along with others for making assault upon the injured persons. 7. He further submits, as according to the FIR the incident of assault upon the injured person occured after the incident of firing, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant was having common object to commit the murder of the deceased. 8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.09.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, however in the FIR it is mentioned that when co-accused Mukesh caused firearm injury to the deceased then thereafter applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the injured person but from the statements of the injured persons recorded during investigation, which have been annexed along with instant bail application, it reflects that firstly applicant and others made assault upon the injured persons and in the meantime co-accused Mukesh Shukla caused firearm injury to the deceased, therefore, it cannot be observed that applicant was not having any common object along with other persons but they could not dispute the fact there is specific allegation against co-accused Mukesh Shukla that he caused firearm injury to the deceased and there is no allegation against the applicant that he caused any injury to the deceased. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per prosecution applicant and others made assault and due to the assault made by them one person lost his life and four persons sustained injuries but role of causing firearm injury has been specifically assigned to co-accused Mukesh Shukla and from the perusal of the injuries of injured person it reflects that they did not sustain any injury which can be categorized as dangerous to life. Further, considering the contents of the FIR at this stage it cannot be said that applicant was also having common object to cause the death of the deceased along with co-accused Mukesh Shukla and others. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.09.2024. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant - Vivek Shukla @ Sonu 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 23.1.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad