Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74155 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15267 of 2025 Applicant :- Kaif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 651 of 2024, U/S 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 352, 333, 351(2), 190, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant alongwith co-accused persons Mashroof, Shauraaf, Kamran and five unknown persons is stated to have barged into the house of the informant and asked for Sahil and started firing indiscriminately at the family members of the informant, thereby causing gunshot injuries to Afia, who died instantaneously on 1.12.2024 at about 7.00 pm. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. It is true that the applicant is named in the FIR and all the accused persons have been assigned the role of carrying firearm weapons but subsequently, the main eye-witness i.e. Sahil, the person whose murder was purported to be committed by the named accused persons, has stated in his statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S. that the co-accused person Mashroof carried a pistol and the other persons including the applicant carried lathi, danda and saria. 7. The deceased person has only sustained one gunshot wound on her chest which proved fatal to her. In the Autopsy report, the doctor observed one firearm wound of entry in her chest below her sternum notch and the exit wound is stated to be communicating to the said wound of entry. The deceased has not sustained any other injury on her body. Thus, no role of applicant can be assigned in the said offence. 8. The applicant has no previous criminal history except a case u/s 109 B.N.S. which is a police party firing no injury case and a case u/s 3/5/25/27 of Arms Act, which have been explained in paragraph 24 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. 9. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 10. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the witness Julfikar has assigned general role to all the accused persons and all of them were carrying firearm weapons and fired indiscriminately at witness Sahil and the other family members causing death of Afia. 11. The other eye-witness, particularly Monis Tyagi has nominated the applicant having carried the firearm weapon, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the star witness Sahil, whereby the role of firing from the pistol has been assigned to co-accused person Mashroof, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Kaif involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad