Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45436 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9193 of 2023 Applicant :- Munees Ahmad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Mishra,Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Pramod Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh,Vikas Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.92 of 2023 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1- B) Arms Act, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur. It is alleged that on 21.02.2023, after having dinner at home, Tausif Khan, complainant's husband went to sleep. At around 11:00 p.m., he received a phone call from Suhana, daughter of Munis Khan. On receiving the call, Tausif went to Suhana’s house, where it is alleged that Munis Khan’s three sons—namely, Muid Khan (son of Munis Khan), Tauheed Khan (son of Munis Khan), Mafroz @ Chhotu (son of Munis Khan) along with Munis Khan’s son-in-law, together shot and killed Tausif Khan (son of late Afaq Saeed Khan) by firing a licensed firearm. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 65 years old and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that co-accused Muied Khan has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4740 of 2024. It is submitted that out of the three alleged eye-witnesses, two eye witnesses namely Suhana and Mohd. Junaid Shakeel have already been discharged by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.07.2025. As far as the third alleged eye-witness is concerned, it is submitted that a perusal of his statement reveals that during cross-examination, he has not stated anywhere that he is an eye- witness to the incident. The statement made by him in examination- in-chief appears to be tutored; in fact, he is not an eye-witness. Furthermore, out of ten prosecution witnesses, six have already been examined. Therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with the remaining witnesses. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and have submitted that PW3 Mohd. Junaid Shakeel is the eye witness. It is also submitted by learned A.G.A. that the investigating officer has recovered the murder weapon 315 bore pistol and empty cartridge 315 bore by which the crime has been committed on the pointing out of the accused. cause of death is shock and haemorrhage Due to Ante Mortem Firearm Injury. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is 65 years old, has no criminal antecedents, statements of six prosecution witnesses, including all fact witnesses, have already been recorded, and two prominent eye-witnesses have been discharged on an application moved by the complainant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the remaining evidence; further, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, and in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Munees Ahmad Khan be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (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 of the IPC (now Section 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 Section 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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench