Second bail application rejected; applicant shot injured; clear identification; history of five similar cases; on bail in those cases; precedents distinguished; trial directed to be expedited.
The second bail application is rejected at this stage. ¶¶19
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37581
Court No. - 8
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13306 of 2024 Applicant :- Dawood Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Ajai Kumar,Harjot Singh,Sachin Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vishal Saraswat, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court by means of the order dated 12.8.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even though his first bail application was rejected on 12.8.2024, however since then, the case in question has not proceeded and there is a material delay. It is urged that the applicant has been in custody since 12.1.2024 and there is no likelihood that the said trial would come to a close in the near future. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further urged that all other four other co-accused in the instant case crime number, have been enlarged on
bail hence, the similar parity should also be granted to the applicant.
It is also urged that even taking the averments in the F.I.R. as well as the evidences collected, it would still reveal that the injured received bullets, on a non vital part and in such circumstances also the gravity of the offence is diluted which of course would be subject to the evidences in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2020) 11 SCC 648 to buttress the submission that even in case if there are other cases against the same accused, yet that in itself is not a ground to deny the bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ubaid Vs. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2023 : AHC : 153946) wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tiwari (supra), the bail was granted by the court on the premise that even if several other cases are pending, it would not impact the rights of the applicant to seek bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Monish @ Muneesh Vs. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2019 AHC-LKO-553) to state that in case if the injury is on a non vital part, the benefit should go to the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since the rejection of the first bail application vide order dated 12.8.2024, there has been no change in the circumstances. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are on the strength of the merits of the matter which was already taken note of by the court while rejecting the first bail application. It is urged that insofar as the trial is concerned, the same can be expedited and that in itself may not be a ground for grant of bail specially when the applicant being already on bail in five other cases has yet got himself involved in the instant case.
The court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.
As far as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, it would reveal that in
the case of Prabhakar Tiwari(supra) there was no clear statements as to whether who had fired the gun shot and it is in those circumstances that the bail was granted by the High Court and the Apex Court declined to interfere citing that once the discretion has been exercised by the High Court, the Apex Court would be reluctant to interfere in such matters. For the said reason, the aforesaid decision may not come to the aid of the present applicant.
Even in the other decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ubaid, it would indicate that the facts are different to the case of the applicant. For the aforesaid reasons that third decision cited by the applicant, also has no applicability in the present case.
In the instant case, there is a clear statement by the injured who clearly stated that he received bullet shot injury which was fired by the present applicant. The same was corroborated by the doctor who stated that the said bullet was removed from the body of the injured with surgical intervention. Moreover, this court had called for the report from the court concerned regarding the
status of the trial and the report has been brought on record. However, insofar as the trial is concerned, the report of the trial court reveals that it is fixed for framing of charges. Moreover, an undisputed fact is that the applicant has a history of five cases which are of similar nature. The applicant being on bail got himself involved in the present case and he is alleged to have shot the injured, who received bullet injury and the bullet was removed from the body of the injured even on a non-vital part indicates the audacity of the applicant, hence at this stage, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find good ground to allow this second bail application. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected at this stage. The trial court is directed to ensure that the trial is expedited and no unnecessary adjournments will be given to either parties and once the statement of the complainant/ injured and informant is concluded, then it would be open for the applicant to approach the court.
Order Date :- 3.7.2025/Shukla
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
4 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves bail despite rejection of first bail application, given delay in trial and custody since 12.1.2024¶¶8
Whether injury on a non-vital part dilutes the gravity of the offence for bail purposes¶¶11
The decision in Prabhakar Tiwari (2020) 11 SCC 648 is distinguished as it involved no clear statement as to who fired the gunshot, unlike the present case where the injured clearly identified the applicant.ratio¶¶15
Whether pending other cases against the applicant is a ground to deny bail¶¶11
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhakar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶¶11
Prabhakar Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2020) 11 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Ubaid Vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶¶11
Mohd. Ubaid Vs. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2023 : AHC : 153946)
Monish @ Muneesh Vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶¶12
Monish @ Muneesh Vs. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2019 AHC-LKO-553)
How this case reached the court
First bail application rejected by this Court¶¶7
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench · 2024-08-12
Applicant has been in custody since 12.1.2024¶¶8
Trial is fixed for framing of charges¶¶18
Applicant has a history of five cases of similar nature and was on bail in those cases¶¶19
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
