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

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.150/2025, under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) BNS (corresponding Sections- 120B, 302, 149, 147, 148 IPC), Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 04.04.2025 has been lodged under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) and 103(1) BNS (Old Sections 307, 149, 148, 120(b) and 302 IPC), alleging therein that on 3.4.2025 at about 6.00 PM the son of the informant was chatting with his cousin brother Shubham outside the house then five named persons including the present applicant had come on two motorcycles at the place of incident and Sagar yadav, Monu Yadav and Ajay Nishad started firing upon son of the informant, due to which he fell on the ground, then Subham started running from the place. After hearing the alarm, accused persons ran away from the place of incident.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. his name surfaced for the first time in the statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma.

¶16

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma, the allegation of firing has been levelled against the applicant, even the FSL report of the

¶17

BAIL No. 3231 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

weapons used in the alleged crime shows that the weapons used in the crime belong to co-accused, namely, Ankit Yadav and Monu Yadav, which shows that the alleged witness improvised the case at the time of giving statement, whereas in the F.I.R. no role of firing has been assigned to the applicant.

¶20

It is further submitted that the co-accused Neeraj Yadav, to whom similar role has been assigned in the F.I.R, has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 01.04.2026 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 6719 of 2025. It is further submitted that no recovery has been made from the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.07.2025.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of two cases; in one case, the applicant is on bail and in another one, summons have yet been served upon him.

¶22

He has further submitted and relied upon the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein it has been observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. He has further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Diwakar Yadav @ Photu Yadav @ Photu having identical role has already been granted bail vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10405/2025.

¶23

On the other hand learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant/informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and have submitted that the name of the applicant was taken by eye witness, which made out an offence against the applicant. The applicant is also having criminal history of two cases.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the fact is that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. His name surfaced for the first time in the statement of alleged eye witness Shubham Vishwakarma, who had assigned the role of firing upon nine accused persons i.e. six named accused persons and three not named persons including the present applicant but there are only two gun shot injuries upon the deceased. No recovery has been made from the applicant. The FSL report filed by A.G.A. shows that the weapons used in the crime belong to co-accused namely, Ankit Yadav and Monu Yadav as also the fact that the co-accused Neeraj Yadav has already been granted bail; hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶26

BAIL No. 3231 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

Let the applicant Amjad Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) 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.

¶34

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶35

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶37

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶38

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶39

May 13, 2026 DiVYa

¶40

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjad Ali 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

Sushil vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Aashif Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arpit Dubey @ Ankit vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Vishal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 3 Others