HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3756 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 418 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Jhangha, District - Gorakhpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024, which is reproduced as below :- "1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 418 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station - Jhangha, District - Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. According to prosecution version, on 28.11.2021 on account of collision of motor-cycle of informant's son Vishal Yadav with accused Gulshan Kumar and Amar Nath, a quarrel has taken place. In that regard when the sister-in-law of the informant protested, co-accused Gulshan has hit her with a stick. Thereafter, applicant Amar Nath and co-accused persons have attacked the informant's party and that applicant-accused Amar Nath and co-accused Gulshan Kumar have made firing and resultantly several persons sustained injuries and out of of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Chakrasudan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Satya Priya Mishra Amar Nath Nishad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) them Vishal and Ram Kishun Yadav succumbed to injuries. 4. It has been argued by learned Senior Advocate that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The site-plan of the spot was referred and it was stated that the informant's family was aggressor and this fact is further corroborated by the photographs of the spot. Regarding the same incident, a cross case was registered against the informant's party vide Case Crime No. 65 of 2022, under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 354, 307 I.P.C. Referring to injury reports of injured Chandrakali, Priyanka, Dayaram and Rinki, it was submitted that injuries appear fictitious and the injury report was prepared showing false injuries. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the family members of the informant were aggressor and they have come at the applicant's house and they were armed with various weapons and attacked the accused persons. The nature of injuries sustained by deceased persons shows that the same were not caused by regular guns, whereas applicant has been assigned single barrel gun. There are contradictions in the statements of injured witnesses. Applicant is an infirm person and he was not able to participate in any such incident. Co-accused Sunil, Shailesh, Pawan and Vikas have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2022. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2021 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered and four persons have sustained injuries. The applicant and co-accused Gulshan have been assigned the role of firing at deceased persons and injured. Both the deceased persons have suffered fire-arm injuries. The allegation that incident took place at house of the accused is wholly false and in fact incident took place near the land of informant. Learned counsel for the informant has referred statements of injured persons and submitted that role of applicant is distinguished from aforesaid co-accused persons, as the applicant and co-accused Gulshan have been assigned role of firing at the deceased persons, whereas said co-accused persons were not the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased persons. The role of applicant was distinguished in the bail order of said co-accused persons. Referring to statement of injured persons, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant. 5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, specific role of applicant- accused and all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, no case for bail is made out. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is rejected. " 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the incident in question, a cross case was also lodged from the side of accused persons vide BAIL No. 3756 of 2025 2 Crime No. 65 of 2022, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 354, 307 I.P.C.. It was submitted that attending facts show that it was informant's party, which was aggressor and they came at applicant's house and attacked the accused persons. There are contradictions in the statements of injured witnesses. Some of co-accused persons, namely, Sunil, Shailesh, Pawan and Vikas have already been granted bail. 5. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024. Now all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. The informant / P.W.-1 Ramayan Yadav has not assigned any specific role to the applicant. The statement of P.W.-2 Indal Yadav and other witnesses that applicant has caused fire-arm injuries to Ram Kishun is false. It is further submitted that material witnesses have already been examined thus, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. It was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2021 and trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Lastly, it was submitted that in case, applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. There are statements of eye witnesses to the effect that applicant was having a gun and he has fired a bullet at deceased Ram Kishun. In the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered and several other persons have sustained injuries. Role of firing at deceased persons has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Gulshan Kumar. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Perusal of record shows that in the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered and several persons have sustained injuries. Role of firing at deceased persons has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Gulshan Kumar. The role of co-accused persons, who have been granted bail, is BAIL No. 3756 of 2025 3 distinguished from applicant. Considering entire facts, no case for bail is made out. 9. However, keeping in view the period of custody of applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of ten months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With aforesaid observations, the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant - Amar Nath Nishad, is hereby rejected. 11. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance. February 24, 2026 S Rawat BAIL No. 3756 of 2025 4 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad