Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8199 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Alias Kalu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.778 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR applicant alongwith co-accused Vaibhav, Rambabu, Bhura and Ram Kumar committed the murder of the brother of the informant by causing firearm injury to him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that however, when the first statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he reiterated the version of the FIR but when his second statement was recorded by the I.O. then he changed the version of the FIR and he however, also disclosed the name of other accused, who were named in the FIR alongwith applicant but he introduced one new accused Vipin Bhagauta and stated that applicant, co-accused Rambabu and Vipin Bhagauta caused firearm injuries to the deceased and after his statement when statements of other witnesses were recorded by the I.O. then they also reiterated the version of the informant disclosed in his second statement. He further submits, therefore, as per prosecution, applicant, co-accused Rambabu and Vipin Bhagauta caused firearm injuries to the deceased but co-accused Vipin Bhagauta has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47467 of 2024. 5. He further submits that however, co-accused Vipin Bhagauta was not named in the FIR but as far as allegations of causing firearm injuries to the deceased are concerned, as per the statements of eye-witnesses, case of applicant is at par with him. 6. He further submits that however, applicant was having no criminal history but when he was arrested in the present matter then he has also been challaned for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., however, in that case, he is on bail. 7. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.11.2023 i.e. for last almost one and half years. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is specifically named in the FIR and however, in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused, who were total five in numbers but when the second statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he specifically stated that applicant alongwith two others including co-accused Vipin Bhagauta caused firearm injuries to the deceased and however, co- accused Vipin Bhagauta has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 but as he was not named in the FIR, therefore, his case was distinguishable from the case of the applicant and therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant should not be released on bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, in the FIR and in the first statement of the informant recorded during investigation he attributed only general to all the accused including applicant but when his second statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he changed his earlier version and categorically stated that applicant, co-accused Rambabu and Vipin Bhagauta caused firearm injuries to the deceased and therefore, it reflects, he introduced co-accused Vipin Bhagauta through his second recorded during investigation. Further, it also reflects, when the statements of other alleged eye- witnesses were recorded during investigation then they also reiterated the second statement of the informant and therefore, as per the prosecution, applicant, co-accused Rambabu and Vipin Bhagauta caused firearm injuries to the deceased and co-accused Vipin Bhagauta has been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025. However, co-accused Vipin Bhagauta was not named in the FIR but from the statements of the eye-witnesses including the second statement of the informant, it reflects, according to them, he alongwith applicant and co-accused Rambabu caused firearm injuries to the deceased, therefore, considering their statements, the case of applicant is at par with him. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that-: "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India." 12. Further, however, applicant was having no previous criminal history but it reflects, when he was arrested in the present matter then he has also been challaned by the police for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and in that case, he is on bail. 13. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.11.2023 i.e. for last almost one and half years. 14. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and his/her bail application should not be held for punitive purposes. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Vishal Alias Kalu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad