HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25629 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Case called out in the revised list. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel, Shri Anil Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kabeer Tiwary, learned counsels for the applicant, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General/Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Deenu Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Kumar Upadhyay, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 425 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 120-B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Court, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 28.5.2025 and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 11.5.2025. Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. The false implication of the applicant is in fact on account of a verbal quarrel with the SSP, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kabeer Tiwari, Sushil Shukla, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashi Chood Pandey Deenu Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Kumar Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Kanpur Nagar. It has been argued that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 20.6.2020 at 1:00 PM. The FIR was lodged on 20.6.2020 at 12:18 night nominating six persons including the applicant and unknown persons with the allegation that three years back the co-accused Mohd. Aasim @ Pappu Smart and Saud Akhtar had shot the informant's brother, namely, Pintu Senghar who somehow survived and his testimony was going to be recorded and the two accused persons were pressurizing him to settle the matter but his brother had refused to do so and life threats were being extended to the brother of the informant. The FIR further alleged that his brother had purchased 5 bighas of land from one Nitesh Kannaujiya and meanwhile, co-accused Manoj Gupta with the help of the applicant and co- accused Aridaman Singh started to pressurize his brother to return the said land and threatened to kill him on his refusal. The said Manoj Gupta, Aridaman Singh and the applicant is alleged to have called the brother of the informant and when the informant, his brother and driver reached the place where they were called in their Innova car and alighted from the same, they were fired upon by 4 persons on two motorcycles. The applicant, co-accused Aridaman Singh and Mahfooz Akthar are stated to be present there and have been assigned the role of indiscriminate firing in which the brother of the informant received fatal fire arm injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. It has been argued that the informant is not an eye witnesses of the incident. Rupesh Prajapati, the driver of the informant, who is stated to be an eye witness, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has not named the applicant. The applicant has not been named in the statements of the independent witnesses Wahid, Akthar, Mohd. Asif, and Faizan. The CDR details of the co-accused persons did not reveal any call details of the applicant. The CCTV footage also does not reveal the presence of the applicant at the place of the alleged incident. The statements of some other independent witnesses, namely, Sakeel Ahmad, Raju, Naeem, Safhad Ahmad recorded on 3.8.2020 also do not nominate the applicant. The statement of another eye witness Amitabh Pandey recorded after three months of the alleged incident also does not reveal the name of the applicant. The informant in his 3rd statement also does not name the applicant. In the 4th and 5th statement of the informant also BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 2 the name of the applicant was not disclosed. It has been argued that initially six persons including the applicant and one unknown person were nominated in the FIR. During the investigation, 11 persons were further added. Charge sheet was filed against 12 persons and the applicant was not charge sheeted and was, however, shown as a suspect. The second charge sheet was filed on 10.8.2021 against Maqbook alias Bablu Sultanpuri only and partial investigation against the applicant was shown to be going on. Learned Senior Counsels for the applicant have vehemently argued that no electronic, physical or circumstantial concrete evidence has been found against the applicant. There was some hot talk with the senior Police Officers and pursuant thereto an application dated 8.5.2025 under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., was got filed and further investigation was ordered against the applicant and evidence under Section 120-B IPC was collected against the applicant. The basis of such prosecution under Section 120-B IPC was the statement of the wife and father of the deceased recorded on 4.5.2025 after nearly 05 years of the alleged incident. It is argued that an attempt is being made after considerable delay of 05 years to establish the complicity of the applicant in this very case merely on the basis of hearsay and only allegation of conspiracy is being made against the applicant. It is further argued that even after several rounds of investigation supervised by several Senior Police Officers of the District Kanpur Nagar, the complicity of the applicant was not found in the commission of the crime. Several other co-accused persons named in the FIR have been charge sheeted and trial against them is proceeding on several prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that the applicant is a practicing Advocate since 2014 and has raised his voice against the police authorities highlighting their arbitrary action against the lawyer community. The applicant has been made a soft target by the annoyed Police Authorities. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to a communication dated 30.4.2025 (Annexure-42 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application) addressed by the Addl. Police Commissioner (Law & Enforcement), Kanpur Nagar to all the Police Stations under the Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar to implicate the applicant in various criminal cases. Acting BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 3 on the aforesaid letter, the applicant has been implicated in various false cases by persuading the informant of old first information reports. It has been submitted that the applicant before his arrest in this case crime number was implicating in as many as 07 cases, in which the FIR was filed and accepted in as many as 06 cases, while in one case anticipatory bail granted as is evident from the chart below:- Sr. No. Date of FIR Case Crime No. Penal Section- IPC Police Station District Status 1. 6.5.1988 114A of 1988 302 Nawabganj Kanpur Nagar FR filed and accepted by the Trial Court 2. 9.5.1988 115 of 1988 307, 388 Nawabganj Kanpur Nagar FR filed and accepted by the Trial Court 3. 19.8.1992 292 of 1992 147, 148, 336, 506 Nawabganj Kanpur Nagar FR filed and accepted by the Trial Court 4. 16.3.1997 89 of 1997 323, 504, 506 Nawabganj Kanpur Nagar FR filed and accepted by the Trial Court 5. 30.7.1997 282 of 1997 364-A, 120-B Kotwali Kanpur Nagar Acquittal by Trial Court. 53 of 147, Kanpur FR filed 6. 23.3.2019 Nawabganj BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 4 2019 148, 323, 307 Nagar and accepted by the Trial Court 7. 13.4.2025 90 of 2025 420, 467, 468, 471 Kotwali Kanpur Nagar Abail granted on 18.4.2025 However, after his arrest, the applicant has now been implicated in as many as 14 cases as is evident from the chart depicted below:- Sr. No. Date of Incident Date of FIR Case Crime No. Status 1 27.9.2018 27.9.2018 280 of 2018 u/s 427, 323, 147 IPC PS Kotwali Not named in FIR and implicated now. 2 16.8.2021 12.12.2022 1061 of 2022, u/s 120B, 506, 504, 392, 323, 471, 468, 467, 427, 148, 147 IPC, PS Chakeri Not named in FIR and implicated on the basis of 161 statement now 3 21.12.2023 16.9.2024 103 of 2024, u/s 506, 463, 380, 457, 419 IPC, PS Fazal Ganj Not named in FIR and implicated on the basis of 161 statement now 4 21.11.2024 5.12.2024 105 of 2024, u/s 62, 329 (4), 352, 351 (2), 191 (2) BNS Not named in FIR and implicated on the basis of 161 statement in May, 2025 Not named in FIR and implicated on 5 2006 17.12.2024 363 of 2024, u/s 420, 120B IPC, PS Nawabganj BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 5 the basis of 161 statement on 22.5.2025. S. 386, 467, 468, 471 IPC add during investigation. 6 23.3.2025 5.4.2025 41 of 2025, u/s 352, 351 (2), 115 (2), 333, 191 (3), 191 (2) BNS, PS Kohana Not named in FIR and implicated on the basis of 161 statement now 7 2018 10.5.2025 73 of 2025, u/s 191 (2), 333, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 308 (5), 329 (3) BNS, PS Gwaltoli Named in FIR with 3 others. 8 1.6.2024 16.5.2025 189 of 2025, u/s 465, 506, 384, 47, 352, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, PS Naubasta Named in FIR with others. 9 5.9.2020 18.5.2025 198 of 2025, u/s 191 (2), 308 (2), 318 (2), 338, 336 (2), 340 (2), 61 (2), 351 (3) BNS PS Naubasta Not named in FIR and implicated on the basis of 161 statement now 10 10.1.2022 20.5.2025 110 of 2025, u/s 147, 406, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 PS Bidhnoo Named in FIR with others. BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 6 11 23.6.2010 21.5.2025 205 of 2025, u/s 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 384, 342, 120B PS Naubasta Named in FIR with others. 12 1.1.2018 1.6.2025 109 of 2025, u/s 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC r/s 7 CrLA, PS Kotwali Named in FIR with all family members. 13 22.11.2018 1.6.2025 119 of 2025, u/s 364, 307, 504, 506 IPC r/w 3 SC/ST Act, PS Nawabganj Named in FIR with family members. 14 15.10.2024 1.6.2025 26 of 2025, u/s 3 (5), 308 (5), 51, 352 BNS, PS Seesamau Named in FIR with others. It is argued that the false implication of the applicant is more than apparent. It is submitted that co-accused Shyam Sushil Mishra, Mahfooz Akhtar, Virendra Pal, Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta, Mohd. Ayaz @ Taishan, Tanveer Anwar @ Tanveer Badshah, Saud Akthar, Mohd. Aslam @ Gulrez, Maqbool @ Babloo Sultanpuri, Mohd. Anees, Safex Sarfi @ Haider Saifi, Mohd. Amir, Ahsan Qureshi have been enlarged on bail. The respective bail orders have been filed as a competition which is taken on record. It is submitted that the entire investigation which continued for about 05 years, the involvement of the applicant has not been found in any way directly or indirectly. In all these years, the applicant has neither induced or threatened the witnesses nor influenced the investigation or the trial in any manner and is not at a flight risk. The applicant undertakes to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 7 not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Per contra, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General/Senior Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea. In the first limb of his arguments, he submits that there is sufficient material against the applicant to implicate him to have conspired in the commission of the crime. He has taken the Court through the investigation by referring to and drawing the attention of the Court to the various parchas of the case diary to establish the complicity of the applicant. While referring to CD-68, he submits that charge sheet 605A/21 was forwarded against the accused Mahfooz Akhtar and Saud Akhtar. CD-69 records that charge sheet 605B/21 was forwarded against Manoj Gupta and Veerendra Pal while the investigation was pending against the applicant, Aridaman Singh, Rashid Kaliya, Maqbook Sultanpuri and Subham Allah. The CD-106 records that charge sheet No. 605C/21 was forwarded against Bablu Sultanpuri while investigation was pending against the applicant Aridaman Singh and Subham Allah. The investigating officer deleted the name of the applicant, which fact was recorded in CD-147. The ACP, Chawni, Kanpur Nagar passed an order on 10.4.2023 to continue the investigation against the applicant and others, which was recorded in CD-150. The investigating officer again deleted the name of the applicant, Aridaman Singh and Subham Allah recording the same in CD No. 188. The ACP again vide order dated 18.8.2024 directed investigation to continue against the applicant which was recorded in CD-189. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State has also invited the attention of this Court to the investigation recorded in CD-201, CD-202, CD-204, CD-205 and CD-209 to buttress his submission that material exists for the implication of the applicant in the form of application dated 14.4.2025 moved by the informant, statement of the informant, CDR details of the applicant, statement of the widow of the deceased recorded on 4.5.2025 and statement of Manish Awasthi, an independent witness recorded on 13.5.2025. This Court takes note of the fact that such evidence against the applicant is forthcoming after 05 years of the alleged incident. Shri Manish Goyal, learned AGA in the second limb of his arguments has BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 8 attempted to justify the gap of 05 years i.e. 2020-2025 in gathering evidence against the applicant by submitting that the investigating officer was playing mischief and was taken to task and suspended in May, 2025. The investigating officer was changed on 26.3.2025. The erstwhile investigating officer had reported that applicant was not involved twice. Subsequently, he reported that the applicant was involved. Some Police officers involved in the investigation were also arrested. The investigation against the applicant is continuing. In the third limb of his submissions, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General contends that the applicant is not entitled to parity as claimed inasmuch as admittedly, the applicant is an Advocate and belongs to a different class of accused, he stands on a different pedestal. The applicant, if enlarged on bail, shall most certainly prejudice the trial and the same is likely to be derailed. The applicant is an influential person. The nature of accusation against him is different. He has nexus with high official and is most likely to hamper the progress of the trial. Shri Goyal, however, is not able to effectively rebut the submissions of learned Senior Counsels for the applicant as noted hereinabove. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Deenu Upadhyay @ Dheeraj Kumar Upadhyay , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 9 co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 19, 2025 Ravi Prakash BAIL No. 25629 of 2025 10 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad