HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31219 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. The instant Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Vikas Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 351 (2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27/30 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-63, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 30.7.2027 and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 18.4.2025. Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been implicated in this very case crime number. for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the present case crime number was lodged against two unknown persons alleged to be sitting in a white Fortuner bearing the registration No. UP- 16-EV-1236 with the allegation that on 18.4.2025 at around 2:10 AM, an altercation took place near Jhihar Hotel Cut where the relative of the Informant, namely Lalu Prasad (truck driver) was shot at by the persons sitting in the white Fortuner vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16-EV- 1236. The FIR is delayed by about 3 hrs. 14 minutes without there being Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.C.Srivastava, Subham Singh, Vineet Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikas Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) any explanation for the same even though the police station is located only at a distance of 6 Kms. The ownership of the vehicle is not disputed but it is submitted that the same was borrowed by a friend on the pretest of attending a marriage ceremony. No one has seen the incident and the eye witnesses shown are planted witnesses. No test identification parade has been got conducted by the Investigating Officer to establish the identity of the applicant. The first informant has not nominated the applicant and the co-accused in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, but has revealed the name of the applicant and co-accused in his majid (second) statement. It is argued that the 2nd statement of the first informant and the statement of the witnesses Sanjay son of Yaduvanshi Ram and Manoj Yadav son of Kailash Nath is not consistent with the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. It is also argued that charge sheet against the applicant has been submitted on 4.7.2025 and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not a flight risk. He undertakes to abide by the conditions of the bail, if enlarged on bail. It is also argued that the applicant is a chronic patient of liver cirrhosis with 80% of his liver being compromised and his enlargement on bail is prayed for better treatment of his aliments. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that there is sufficient materials collected by the Investigating Officer to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of crime. The statement of the prosecution witnesses including that of the first informant recorded as his 2nd statement cannot be disbelieved particularly in view of the fact that the vehicle involved in the crime is that of the applicant and there is no evidence of it being borrowed by a friend as alleged by the applicant. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application warrants rejection. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that though the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16-EV-1236 mentioned in the FIR belongs to the applicant, but in the absence of any cogent materials identifying the occupants of the vehicle and the applicant as driver of the said vehicle shooting the deceased the false implication of the applicant only on the basis of being owner of the BAIL No. 31219 of 2025 2 vehicle cannot be ruled out. The first informant in his Majid Bayan (2nd statement) has clearly deposed that the person sitting next to the driver seat in the vehicle in question called out the name of the applicant asking him to shoot whereafter the driver of the vehicle in question took out his upper torso of his body from the window of the driver side and shoot at the deceased with pistol. However, this version is not reflected from the CCTV footage. Charge sheet has already been filed and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Considering the above, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Vikas Kumar, 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: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. 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. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 12, 2025 Ravi Prakash BAIL No. 31219 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad