Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69745 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12373 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Aslam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Pandey,Vishwa Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Vishwa Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for State. 2. This is second bail application filed by applicant-Mohammad Aslam in Case Crime No. 113 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. First bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 30.04.2024 by giving following reasons: “(a) Presence of applicant alongwith other co-accused was fixed in FIR as well as in the statements of eye witnesses recorded during investigation. (b) Specific role has been assigned to applicant of causing firearm injury to deceased which is corroborated not only by eye witness account but from post mortem report also. (c) The submission that it was a case of blind murder and that time of alleged occurrence does not corroborate with condition of rigor mortis, as mentioned in post mortem report conducted after about 17 hours, would be a subject matter of trial since it requires deliberation on basis of Doctor?s evidence and other material as well as that in certain cases rigor mortis could extend even upto 24 hours. The Court notes that it was opined that time since death was 3/4 days, i.e., about 18 hours which corroborates time of occurrence. (d) Attempt of learned counsel for applicant to point out lacuna that injuries caused to applicant was not explained would also be a subject matter of trial since he has not promptly examined himself or lodged FIR in this regard.” 3. There is a direct evidence against applicant that he was the author of causing fatal firearm injury and the eye witness account remain consistent even in cross- examination. The submission of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is in jail since 15.02.2022, i.e., for more than three years, be considered as prolonged detention, cannot be accepted considering the role of applicant. 4. Trial is proceeding and out of eight proposed prosecution witnesses, four have already been examined. It is also brought on record that one accused is summoned on basis of an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, his trial has to be conducted in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the cases of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014(3) SCC 1992 and Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, 2023(1) SCC 289. 5. A person who has direct role of causing murder would be threat to society, therefore, said period of detention cannot be considered as a prolonged detention. The application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad