Shafeek vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 61(2), 109(1), 351(3) of B.N.S. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

¶13

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 17.06.2025 against eight named persons and some unknown persons, stating that while the informant's brother and cousin were having tea at a shop in the market at about 06:00 PM on 16.06.2025, six named co-accused persons came there in two cars, fired shots with an illegal pistol and assaulted the informant's cousin with iron rods. Two passers-by suffered gun-shot injuries in the incident. The FIR states that Sakhira Begum, Manijulnisha and Mehfooz were involved in planning of the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general role causing injury with lathi and danda has been assigned to the applicant. The role of inflicting fire arm injury has been assigned to the co-accused Shahbaz @ Lambu. There are four injured persons in this case, the first injured Aamir Suhel has not identified anyone, although he has received fire arm injury. The other injured persons namely Ikhlaq Ahmad, Alok Patel and Nawab Ali have assigned specific role of causing fire arm injury to the co-accused Shahbaz

¶15

BAIL No. 232 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

@ Lambu and only general role of assault has been assigned to the applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits the applicant has criminal history of 4 cases, which has been explained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that co-accused person namely Mubarak Khan @ Ajharul Hasan been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9106 of 2025.

¶19

Other co-accused persons Jalaluddin and Ruksar have also been enlarged on bail vide orders passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10012 of 2025 and 8958 of 2025, respectively. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused persons.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2025.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the fact that general role of assault has been levelled against the applicant and the main allegation of causing fire arm injury has been levelled against the co-accused Shahbaz @ Lambu, the fact that co-accused, named above, have been granted bail, as also the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history in the bail application and in the supplementary affidavit; the fact that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.11.2025; 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant- Shafeek, involved in Case Crime No. 179 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 61(2), 109(1), 351(3) B.N.S and Section 7 Criminal Lal Amendment Act, P.S.-Patti, 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

¶26

BAIL No. 232 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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 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.

¶35

January 22, 2026 Vinay/-

¶36

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶37

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

Shafeek v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafeek v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I, Lko. and 2 Others

Saroj Alias Saroj Kumari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Badshah Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Kapil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others