Allahabad High Court
BIJJI ALIAS VIJAY ALIAS BRIJESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the evidence does not conclusively identify him as the shooter and the circumstances warrant his release pending trial.
Summary
The applicant Bijji alias Vijay alias Brijesh was arrested in connection with a murder case (Criminal No. 165 of 2023) and alleged violations of the Arms Act. He was not named in the FIR; his alleged involvement stems solely from the confessional statement of co‑accused Shahbaz. The sole eyewitness, the deceased's servant Fatku, did not identify the applicant, citing that the accused wore masks, and later refused to support the prosecution's version. The post‑mortem shows a single firearm injury despite three weapons being recovered from three different persons, making the identity of the shooter uncertain. The applicant had been in custody since May 2023, with the trial still pending and many witnesses yet to be examined. Citing the lack of direct identification, the principle of presumption of innocence, jail overcrowding, and recent Supreme Court and High Court guidelines on bail, the court allowed the bail application. The court imposed standard bail conditions and directed procedural steps for the applicant's release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences when identification is lacking and the trial is pending.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused alone suffices to justify continued detention.
- Whether considerations of jail overcrowding and pendency of cases warrant bail in serious offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 394, 411
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms offences
- identification
- eyewitness testimony
- trial pendency
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17247 of 2025
Bijji Alias Vijay Alias Brijesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Yadav, Sitesh Kumar, Tarun
Kumar Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kumar
Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail
during the trial in Case Crime No. 165 of 2023, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 34
I.P.C. and 3/25/27 Arms Act ,Police Station NOIDA Sector-58, District- Gautam
Budh Nagar.
3. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33645 of 2024
vide order dated 18.11.2024.
4. As per prosecution story, two motorcycle born boys came on the spot where the
deceased was standing near a Falooda shop along with his servant Fatku. the pillion
rider got down from the motorcycle and fired upon the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not named in
the FIR. His name was surfaced in the statement of co-accused Shahbaz. Subsequently
the applicant and co-accused Shahbaz were arrested along with co-accused Gayasu
and one pistol of 0.32 bore was recovered from the applicant and .315 bore was
recovered from the co-accused Shahbaz. Similarly one country made pistol was
recovered from the Gyasu.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the servant of the deceased, who
was present at the time of incident did not identify the applicant and he clearly stated
that both the accused have covered their face with mask for that reason he could not
identify. It is further submitted that during the trial, the eye witness Fatku refused to
support the prosecution story and stated that police had never shown him the CCTV
footage and he did not identify the present applicant or co-accused. It is further
submitted that no eye witness identified the applicant and he has been falsely
BAIL No. 17247 of 2025
2
implicated only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Shahbaj. Post
mortem report of the deceased shows that he received one fire arm injury though three
fire arms were recovered from three persons, and identity of person, who fired upon
the deceased could not be established. It is further submitted that trial is going on and
the applicant has explained the criminal history of three cases in the accompanying
affidavit. Charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no requirement
for custodial interrogation. It is lastly submitted that out of 49 witnesses, 12 witnesses
have been examined till date and trial is not likely to be concluded in near
future. Therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 06.05.2023. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that eye witness, Faltu did not
identify the applicant as a person, who fired upon the deceased and there is no other
eye witness of the incident in question; coupled with the fact that recovery of fire arms
from three persons and post mortem report shows that the deceased received only one
fire arm injury, and also taken into account the incarceration of the applicant and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs
State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Bijji @ Vijay @ Brijesh involved in the aforementioned 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:-
i. 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.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking
any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.
BAIL No. 17247 of 2025
3
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed
by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the
court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the applicant and
sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of downloaded
copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by
the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.
12. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail
through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the
applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned
Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial Court via e-mode within
24 hours in compliance of the orders of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy
for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on
31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as in the case of Pila Pahan @
Peela Pahan and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.169 of 2025 decided on 29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
September 24, 2026
A.Kr.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…