Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128934 Judgement Reserved On : 02.07.2025 Judgement Delivered On : 31.07.2025 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18221 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikash @ Vikki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurang Dwivedi,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Kanojia Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel along with Sri Abhinav Singh and Sri Gaurv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also Sri Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, learned counsel for the first informant, who has put in appearance in opposition to the bail application. 2. The bail application at the instance of the applicant Vikash @ Vikki has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0002 of 2025, under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 332(C) and 61 of the B.N.S. read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Saharanpur and consequently the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025. 3. Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant is innocent and has been roped in this very case crime number for ulterior motive. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR giving rise to the present case crime number was lodged nominating three named persons on 03.01.2025 regarding an incident said to have taken place on 02.01.2025 wherein two persons are stated to have entered the room where the husband of the first informant along with his two sons and two employees was lying down under a guilt. The two persons one armed with a Katta and the other armed with a Pistol started firing upon the husband of the first informant and after firing they ran away. Efforts to grab the two persons by the son Yash was in vain. The husband of the first informant was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. The persons named are the real brothers of the first informant. The third nominated person Pramod @ Ram Karan Rana is one with whom a litigation is pending. The name of the applicant has surfaced after five days of the incident in CD-4 on the statement of anonymous informant who disclosed the involvement of four persons including the applicant. It is argued that it is the constant case of the prosecution that there are two assailants. The first informant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborates the FIR version and does not name the applicant The independent witness Harsh also states that there were two assailants and does not name the applicant. The witnesses Rakesh, Harsh, Anil and Yash in their statements recorded on 08.01.2025 have maintained that there were four assailants. The CCTV shows presence of two assailants. It is argued that the evidence gathered against the applicant suffers from serious infirmities as pointed out above. The statement of the eye witnesses are inconsistent on the participation of the number of assailants. The recovery of the country made pistol and live cartridges is false and has been made in absence of any witness. There is no FSL Report on record to connect the offence with the applicant. The tower location is in context with the entire village and wholly inadequate to establish the complicity of the applicant. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda reported in 1976 (4) SCC 288 to buttress the preposition that the first informant as also the eye witnesses of the incident do not disclose the name of the applicant for at least five days after the incident seriously affects their credibility. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail, if released on bail. Hence a prayer to release the applicant on bail has been made. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant in opposition to the bail plea submit that the tower location of the Mobile Phone of the applicant showed his presence in the village in question where the incident took place. The applicant was arrested on 10.01.2025 with one Tamancha, one empty cartridge and three live cartridges the charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant, the evidence collected point towards the applicant and, accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 6. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the accused-applicant, Vikash @ Vikki, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. b. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. c. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. d. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. 8. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad