Laiq vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2024, under Sections 109, 331(8), 3(5) B.N.S. and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the basis of CCTV footage the name of the applicant surfaced. It is contended that the applicant had no role in the alleged incident. According to the statement of the injured Srikant (since deceased), the person wearing red shirt fired at him. However, as per the CCTV footage, the person resembling the applicant was wearing a black shirt. The said inconsistencies discredit the case of the applicant at this stage. Further, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 30.09.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 32811 of 2025

2

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. As per the statement of the injured Srikant (since deceased), the person wearing red shirt fired at him. However, as per the CCTV footage, the person resembling the applicant was wearing a black shirt. The said inconsistencies discredit the prosecution case. There is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Laiq, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: