Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39479 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9251 of 2025 Applicant :- Shamshad Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Shree Prakash Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri S.P. Giri and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Nagfani, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 15.11.2024 against applicant and others and according to the FIR on 15.11.2024 at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon applicant and other accused persons made assault upon the brother of the informant through knife and thereafter co-accused Shakeel @ Anda opened fire upon him and due to the assault made by them his brother sustained injuries and died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the incident has been witnessed by Waseem and Naseem. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly informant of the case was not an eye witness of the incident. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, Waseem and Naseem were the eye witnesses. 5. He further submits, however, as per prosecution Naseem and Waseem were the eye witnesses but their statements were recorded during investigation after more than ten days and this fact clearly suggests that actually they were not the eye witnesses. He further submits, even from their statements, it reflects, role of causing injury has not been assigned to the applicant and role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant. 6. He further submits, actually applicant is father of co-accused Shahnawaz, Dilshad, Sarfaraz and Ikram, who allegedly caused knife injuries to the deceased and only being their father, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually he was not even present at spot. 7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 08.01.2025. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is specifically named in the FIR but could not dispute the fact that informant of the case was not an eye witness. Learned AGA however further submitted that it is a case in which deceased died due to knife injuries and role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 9. Learned AGA however could not dispute the fact that statements of both the eye witnesses were recorded during investigation after ten days. He further could not dispute, applicant is the father of co- accused Shahnawaz, Dilshad, Sarfaraz and Ikram, who caused knife injuries to the deceased. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per the statements of the eye witnesses role of catching hold has been assigned to the applicant and post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained number of incised wounds but it reflects, statement of both eye witnesses were recorded after ten days. 12. Further, however, informant was not an eye witness but in spite of that he named the applicant in the FIR along with others and in the FIR he provided photographic description of the incident and considering the fact that applicant is father of co-accused Shahnawaz, Dilshad, Sarfaraz and Ikram, who allegedly caused knife injuries to the deceased, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 08.01.2025. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant - Shamshad Hussain 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 19.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad