Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18042 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47467 of 2024 Applicant :- Vipin Bhagauta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 778 of 2023 at Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 03.12.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Ms. Sindhuja Rathi Bhargava, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the deceased had a running feud with three named offenders. On the fateful day, the said principal offenders lay in wait as the deceased lost the road in front of the house of one Satyapal. The nominated accused persons discharged their firearm and shot dead the deceased. 2. The applicant was not named in the FIR nor in the statement of the first informant made before the police authorities. 3. The applicant was subsequently nominated in the second statement of the first informant made to the police authorities while in the custody of the latter. The said statement is unreliable for various reasons. Firstly, there was no cause for the failure of the first informant to promptly inform the police authorities about the complicity of the applicant in the incident. Secondly, the said implication has been made on the basis of suspicion alone. Suspicion howsoever grave, is no substitute for evidence. 4. The applicant was nominated in this case only to rationalize a fake police encounter staged by the latter authorities to burnish their credentials. 5. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 6. One witness of last seen was subsequently set up only to save the failing prosecution case. The said witness has not assigned the role of firing to the applicant. 7. One country made pistol was planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The recovered article cannot be connected with the offence. Forensic science laboratory report linking the weapon with the crime has not been produced by the prosecution. 8. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. 9. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. 10. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Vipin Bhagauta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad