HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5543 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application under Section 483 BNS has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Salman Ahmad Khan @ Siraj Ahmad Khan, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 109, 3 (5) BNS, Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 5/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 06.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 06.01.2025. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 4. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 05.01.2025 at about 10:30 a.m., the niece of the informant namely Sanjana and the deceased Rinki who are the students of Degree College, were going to appear in the examination on foot and when they reached near Bhatgaon Panchayat Bhawan, the driver of the vehicle (Magic No. U.P. 53-FT-9928) suddenly came from the back side and dashed them, which resulted in the death of Km. Rinki Chaudhary on the spot and Sanjana Chaudhary sustaining serious injuries. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Vilas Mishra, Vinod Kumar Sharma Salman Ahmad Khan Alias Siraj Ahmad Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced during course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Guljar Ali. Neither the informant nor injured have identified the applicant and he has no motive to cause the alleged incident. The applicant was neither driving the vehicle nor he was accompanying with co-accused Guljar Ali. The alleged incident had taken place due to the fact that both the girls students were coming from wrong side as such, the alleged incident took place, which is a case of accidental death and occurred not due to rash and negligent driving, without any motive/intention for committing the alleged crime. Neither the applicant has made any confession before police nor there was any intention for committing the alleged incident. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident and no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant and as such the prosecution story is totally false, fabricated just to enhance the gravity of offence. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the accused, who brutally killed the deceased and the injured in her statement stated that the applicant and other accused persons have committed the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant is of criminal nature and has no respect for the law. All the witnesses in their statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was in possession of the applicant at the time of incident and only two persons were present in the vehicle. The CCTV footage clearly shows that a vehicle in which two persons were sitting stopped behind the girls, both persons sitting in the vehicle interchanged their positions and then intentionally raced towards the girls which resulted in death of one girl and injury to other. The co-accused and the applicant have confessed about the alleged offence and in their statement, they have clearly mentioned that they have intentionally committed the offence. The evidence of injured witness cannot be discarded on the point of being fabricated or concocted and the chain of the circumstance is fully complete and all the evidence are corroborating with the prosecution case. The offence committed by the applicant is planned and he is a man of criminal nature and, therefore, no case is made out for bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. BAIL No. 5543 of 2025 2 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. 9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case July 30, 2025 v.k.updh. BAIL No. 5543 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad