Allahabad High Court
AMAR NATH NISHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJ BEER SINGH
Holding
The Court held that no case for bail exists and rejected the applicant’s bail application.
Summary
Amar Nath Nishad was charged under several IPC sections, including murder and attempt to murder, for a 28 November 2021 incident in which two persons were killed and several injured. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that the informant's party was the aggressor and that witnesses' statements were contradictory. The prosecution presented eye‑witness testimony that the applicant fired at the deceased and assigned him a specific role in the shooting. The High Court, after reviewing the record and the earlier bail denial, found that the evidence linked the applicant to the firing and that the seriousness of the offences outweighed the applicant’s custodial hardship. Consequently, the Court rejected the second bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within ten months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, attempt to murder and other serious offences in view of the evidence linking him to the crime.
- Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody and claim of false implication justify bail despite the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the earlier rejection of bail precludes a fresh bail application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 34, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- trial delay
- custody
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3756 of 2025
Amar Nath Nishad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Chakrasudan
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Satya Priya Mishra
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant,
learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 418 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149,
323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Jhangha, District -
Gorakhpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 13.02.2024, which is reproduced as below :-
"1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the
applicant in Case Crime No. 418 of 2021, under Sections -
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police
Station - Jhangha, District - Gorakhpur with the prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. According to prosecution version, on 28.11.2021 on account
of collision of motor-cycle of informant's son Vishal Yadav
with accused Gulshan Kumar and Amar Nath, a quarrel has taken
place. In that regard when the sister-in-law of the informant
protested, co-accused Gulshan has hit her with a stick.
Thereafter, applicant Amar Nath and co-accused persons have
attacked the informant's party and that applicant-accused
Amar Nath and co-accused Gulshan Kumar have made firing and
resultantly several persons sustained injuries and out of of
BAIL No. 3756 of 2025
2
them Vishal and Ram Kishun Yadav succumbed to injuries.
4. It has been argued by learned Senior Advocate that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. The site-plan of the spot was referred and it was
stated that the informant's family was aggressor and this
fact is further corroborated by the photographs of the spot.
Regarding the same incident, a cross case was registered
against the informant's party vide Case Crime No. 65 of 2022,
under sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 354, 307
I.P.C. Referring to injury reports of injured Chandrakali,
Priyanka, Dayaram and Rinki, it was submitted that injuries
appear fictitious and the injury report was prepared showing
false injuries. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
family members of the informant were aggressor and they have
come at the applicant's house and they were armed with
various weapons and attacked the accused persons. The nature
of injuries sustained by deceased persons shows that the same
were not caused by regular guns, whereas applicant has been
assigned single barrel gun. There are contradictions in the
statements of injured witnesses. Applicant is an infirm
person and he was not able to participate in any such
incident. Co-accused Sunil, Shailesh, Pawan and Vikas have
been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 06.12.2022. Lastly, it was submitted that
applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2021 and that in
case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the alleged
incident, two persons have been murdered and four persons
have sustained injuries. The applicant and co-accused Gulshan
have been assigned the role of firing at deceased persons and
injured. Both the deceased persons have suffered fire-arm
injuries. The allegation that incident took place at house of
the accused is wholly false and in fact incident took place
near the land of informant. Learned counsel for the informant
has referred statements of injured persons and submitted that
role of applicant is distinguished from aforesaid co-accused
persons, as the applicant and co-accused Gulshan have been
assigned role of firing at the deceased persons, whereas said
co-accused persons were not the author of the injuries
sustained by the deceased persons. The role of applicant was
distinguished in the bail order of said co-accused persons.
Referring to statement of injured persons, it was submitted
that there are serious allegations against the applicant.
5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, nature of accusations, specific role of applicant-
accused and all attending facts and circumstances of the
matter, no case for bail is made out.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf
of the applicant is rejected. "
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in this case. Regarding the incident in
question, a cross case was also lodged from the side of accused persons vide
BAIL No. 3756 of 2025
3
Crime No. 65 of 2022, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 354,
307 I.P.C.. It was submitted that attending facts show that it was informant's
party, which was aggressor and they came at applicant's house and attacked
the accused persons. There are contradictions in the statements of injured
witnesses. Some of co-accused persons, namely, Sunil, Shailesh, Pawan and
Vikas have already been granted bail.
5. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024. Now all the material witnesses
have been examined before the trial Court. The informant / P.W.-1 Ramayan
Yadav has not assigned any specific role to the applicant. The statement of
P.W.-2 Indal Yadav and other witnesses that applicant has caused fire-arm
injuries to Ram Kishun is false. It is further submitted that material
witnesses have already been examined thus, there is no possibility of
tampering with evidence. It was submitted that applicant is languishing in
jail since 01.12.2021 and trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long
time. Lastly, it was submitted that in case, applicant is granted bail, he shall
not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that first bail application of applicant has
already been rejected on merits. There are statements of eye witnesses to the
effect that applicant was having a gun and he has fired a bullet at deceased
Ram Kishun. In the alleged incident, two persons have been murdered and
several other persons have sustained injuries. Role of firing at deceased
persons has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Gulshan Kumar.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
8. Perusal of record shows that in the alleged incident, two persons have
been murdered and several persons have sustained injuries. Role of firing at
deceased persons has been assigned to applicant and co-accused Gulshan
Kumar. The role of co-accused persons, who have been granted bail, is
BAIL No. 3756 of 2025
4
distinguished from applicant. Considering entire facts, no case for bail is
made out.
9. However, keeping in view the period of custody of applicant, the trial
Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and to conclude the
same as early as possible preferably within a period of ten months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. With aforesaid observations, the second bail application filed on behalf
of applicant - Amar Nath Nishad, is hereby rejected.
11. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
February 24, 2026
S Rawat (Raj Beer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…