Shoeb @ Roofi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26906

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3841 of 2025

Applicant :- Shoeb @ Roofi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶7

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.23 of 2025 under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.01.2025 when a police team intercepted a motor cycle on which applicant was also riding. It is stated that upon being intercepted, the two persons riding on the motorcycle opened fire upon police team and in retaliation, they were injured. Applicant was apprehended from the spot with injury in his leg. F.I.R. also indicates recovery of illegal fire arms from applicant and co-accused along with other material and are said to have been involved in earlier robberies.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that a perusal of the F.I.R. itself indicates that the alleged illegal fire arms recovery was in fact planted upon applicant. It is stated that applicant's previous criminal history of 11 cases has been explained.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate the role of applicant in allegations levelled against him including that of opening fire upon police party. Recovery has also been indicated from applicant. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused

¶14

person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶15

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although the F.I.R. indicates firing having taken place on the police team and Section 109(1) of B.N.S. also being imputed against applicant, there does not appear to be any injury on police party whereas both applicant as well as co-accused are said to have been injured with applicant sustaining gun shot injury in his leg. It also appears that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from applicant whose previous criminal history has been explained. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Shoeb @ Roofi , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shoeb @ Roofi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeb @ Roofi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pankaj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.