Nadeem Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6174 of 2025

Nadeem Khan

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dilip Mishra, Ravi Shankar Mishra, Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Al Saud Khan, Mohd Wajid Irfan Court No. - 15

¶5

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 20.02.2025 against eight named persons, including the applicant, and four unnamed persons, stating that there is an old animosity between the parties due to which the accused persons had beaten up the complainant at an earlier occasion also, regarding which a case has been registered and is pending. Because of the aforesaid animosity, all the accused persons attacked the informant's brothers Mohd. Irshad and Jahid Ali at about 10:30 am on 19.02.2025 while the informant and his brothers had gone to attend an annual festival in a Madarsa. The FIR alleges that all the accused persons fired shots with country-made pistols towards the complainant's brothers due to which both of them got seriously injured. The injured persons were taken to Trauma Centre, Raniganj from where they were referred to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh and, thereafter, they were referred to A.I.I.M.S. Raebareli.

¶8

In the statement of the complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer, he reiterated the FIR version wherein he had stated that all the accused persons had fired gunshots.

¶9

BAIL No. 6174 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of some eye witnesses, who have identically worded and wherein it has been stated that all the accused persons were firing indiscriminately and the accused persons also got a chance to fire shots due to which Mohd. Jahid suffered an injury in his thigh and Mohd. Irshad suffered an injury near his abdomen near the ribs and on his hand.

¶12

The injured Mohd. Jahid Khan and Mohd. Irshad have also given identical statements stating that the Imran @ Topi @ Shoeb (the applicant No.1), Javed (the applicant No.2), Nadeem and Anul were firing shots. Jahid has stated that a surgical operation was carried out to remove bullet from the hand of his brother Irshad and Mohd. Irshad has also stated that a surgical operation of his brother was conducted to remove a bullet from his hand.

¶13

The medico-legal examination report mentions numerous injuries suffered by both the injured persons including gunshot injuries with tattooing present but the supplementary medico-legal examination report mentions no fracture suffered by any injured person.

¶14

It is further submitted that the two injured Mohd. Irshad and Mohd. Jahid Khan have assigned role of firing to the applicant and co-accused Imran @ Topi @ Shoeb and Javed. The co-accused persons namely Imran @ Topi @ Shoeb and Javed have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 22.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5547 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant seeks parity.

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained criminal history of two cases in para 17 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 14.3.2025.

¶16

There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record,

¶19

BAIL No. 6174 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

the bail order of the co-accused Imran @ Topi @ Shoeb and Javed, as also the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history of two cases in paragraph-17 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 14.3.2025; the fact that the injury report does not show any grievous injuries nor any fracture has been sustained by any of the injured; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶23

Let the applicant-Nadeem Khan involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110 B.N.S and Section 3, 25, 27 Arms Act, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, 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:-

¶24

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶28

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶29

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and

¶30

BAIL No. 6174 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

November 19, 2025 kkb/

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pappu @ Pappu Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bablu @ Basant Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shah Alam Alias Dhoni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aafak Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another