Irshad vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57779

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12624 of 2025

Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.651 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 333, 352, 351(2) & 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.12.2024 against four named (non applicant) and five unknown persons and according to FIR, on 01.12.2024 at about 07.00 p.m. in the evening when informant was in his home, then named accused persons along with their five associates entered in his house and asked about Sahil and started firing and due to fire opened by them, Afiya sustained firearm injury on her chest and died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR, but during investigation when named coaccused Masroof was arrested and his statement was recorded on 04.12.2024, then he disclosed the name of the applicant and, therefore, name of the applicant was surfaced in the present matter for the first time through the statement of co-accused.

¶10

He next submitted that after the statement of co-accused, statements of witnesses Zulfiqar and Sohail were recorded in which they also disclosed the name of the applicant along with other accused and according to the witness Sohail, co-accused Masroof was having firearm and he caused firearm injury to the deceased.

¶11

He further submitted that, however, as per witness Sohail,

¶12

applicant and other co-accused persons were having iron rods and wooden sticks but the post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained two injuries, one firearm entry wound and another was firearm exit wound and, therefore, it reflects that applicant and other accused, who were having wooden sticks and iron rods, did not use the same and admittedly deceased died due to firearm, which was caused by the co-accused Masroof.

¶13

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 01.02.2025.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

From the record, it reflects that the applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation through the statement of coaccused Masroof, he was made accused in the present matter and, however, eye witnesses Zulfiqar and Sohail also disclosed name of the applicant, later on but according to the eye witness Sohail, coaccused Masroof caused firearm injury to the deceased, however, he stated that applicant was having wooden stick and iron rod, but post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only firearm injury.

¶17

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 01.02.2025.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant-Irshad be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Anurag/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babloo Alias Ranjeet vs State of U.P.

Nisar Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Rohit vs State of U.P.

Virendra Sonkar vs State of U.P.

Akram vs State of U.P.

Sundar vs State of U.P.