Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93438 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7050 of 2025 Applicant :- Adnan Pathan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avinash Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 585 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR and as per allegation he along with others caused injury to the son of the informant due to which he died but admittedly informant of the case was not an eye witness. 4. He further submits, however, during investigation before the death, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and in the dying declaration although he disclosed the name of applicant but from his statement it could not be reflected that who caused firearm injury to him. 5. He further submits, however, after his dying declaration, Investigating Officer during investigation also recorded the statement of the deceased before his death and from this statement also it could not be reflected, who caused firearm injury to him. 6. He further submits, however, in both the statements of the deceased, he disclosed the name of applicant but from his statements it could not be reflected, applicant was responsible for his death. 7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 12.10.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are two dying declarations of the deceased on record and in both dying declarations deceased disclosed the name of the applicant and from the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer it reflects he categorically stated that applicant and others firstly abducted him and thereafter committed his murder and therefore from both the dying declarations of the deceased, complicity of the applicant is quite apparent and considering these facts, applicant should not be released on bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record, it reflects, initially FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and others under Section 109(1) B.N.S. but after the death of the injured case was converted under Section 103(1) B.N.S. 11. Record further suggests that however nobody could see the real incident including informant of the case but there are two dying declarations of the deceased on record and in both the dying declarations deceased named the applicant and from both the dying declarations complicity of the applicant is apparent and according to the deceased, applicant and others firstly abducted him and thereafter caused firearm injury to him. 12. Therefore, considering the dying declarations of the deceased, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 14. 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 :- 30.5.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad