Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6789 Reserved Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 846 of 2024 Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swayamanand Sisodiya,Swetashwa Agarwal Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused Narendra in Case Crime No.95 of 2021, under Sections – 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 441, 307, 302, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Falavda, District- Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. 3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the first bail application of applicant was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3082 of 2022. The informant has challenged the said order dated 04.03.2022 before Hon’ble Apex Court vide Criminal Appeal No.812 of 2023, wherein by order dated 28.03.2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court had been pleased to set aside the order dated 04.03.2022 and thereby bail granted to the applicant- accused by this Court was cancelled. By the same order, bail granted to co-accused Krishanpal and Harendra was also cancelled. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant submitted that the applicant- accused was working as a constable in Delhi Police and at the time of alleged incident he was present in Delhi and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Making reference to General Diary Entry No.2 dated 30.06.2021, it was stated that after the incident all the three injured persons were sent to CHC, Mawana and the deceased was shown hale and hearty, which shows that deceased has not died at the spot. In the first information report the eye-witnesses and injured persons have made general allegations against the accused persons, including applicant, and that specific role of firing was assigned to co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. The site-plan of spot is not consistent with the prosecution version. The alleged recovery of country made pistol at the pointing out of applicant and co-accused Harendra, is wholly false and there is no credible evidence to support the same. There is no FSL report of alleged pistol. Applicant has no motive at all to indulge in the said incident and in fact motive was assigned to the co-accused, with whom a civil litigation of informant was pending. During trial, P.W. 1 Luvkush Bhati has not assigned any specific role to applicant. Similarly, P.W.2 Ankush Bhati has also not assigned any role of firing to the applicant. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that applicant is in jail since 17.11.2021 and that earlier he was granted bail by this Court and while on bail he has never misused the liberty of bail. It was stated that in view of attending facts and circumstances, the cancellation of bail of the applicant by Hon’ble Apex Court would not come in the way of enlarging the applicant on bail. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a case for bail is made out and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application and submitted that the bail granted by this Court to the applicant has already been cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and no new ground has been shown in this second bail application. It was submitted that in view of fact that bail granted by this Court to the applicant-accused was cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court by considering merits of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 7. According to prosecution version there was a property related dispute between informant and one Mehtab and Deepak. On the night of 29/30.06.2021, accused persons namely Mehtab, Vikas @ Pappu, Harendra, Narendra (applicant herein), Ankur, Vikas, Arun, Krishanpal, Vijender, Abhisek, Yogendra, Lakshya and Anil tried to take possession over the disputed land. The complainant and his family members reached at the spot resisted their move but the accused persons attacked them and made firing upon them. Resultantly, complainant’s brother Sompal died at the spot and Sunder, Naresh, Mohit, Luvkush, Ankush sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the deceased has suffered bullet, which was fired by co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. 8. As stated above the first bail application of applicant was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 and he was granted bail mainly on the ground that in the F.I.R., specific role of firing at deceased has been attributed to co-accused Vikas @ Pappu and that similarly placed five co-accused persons, namely, Mehtab, Krishanpal, Harendra, Arun and Vikas were already enlarged on bail. However, as stated above the said order dated 04.03.2022 has been quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.812 of 2023, considering merits of the matter. No new substantial ground could be shown to entertain this second bail application. It appears that bail granted to co-accused Krishanpal by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, was also cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter, second bail applications of said co-accused Krishanpal has already been rejected by this Court. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Narendra is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad