Allahabad High Court
VIVEKversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of Vivek, who is accused in Crime No. 384 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the same Act and the Arms Act for allegedly participating in an assault by firearm that resulted in the death of the first informant's brother. The prosecution relied on statements of the first informant and his brother, who identified Vivek as having a specific role, while the defence argued that the witnesses arrived after the shooting and that only two witnesses have been examined so far. The court noted that two co‑accused had already been granted bail, the trial was far from conclusion, and the applicant had a single prior case but had been in custody since 1 August 2025. Weighing the pendency of the trial, the limited evidentiary material, and the applicant’s undertaking, the court found the case suitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions aimed at preventing witness tampering and ensuring the applicant’s presence at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged assault by firearm and death of a victim.
- Whether the evidence on record and the pendency of the trial justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 2, 27, 3
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 483
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault by firearm
- Arms Act
- trial pendency
- witness intimidation
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45481 of 2025
Vivek
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Lal Shukla, Ram Bilas Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajendra Kumar, Anand Mohan, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary and counter affidavit filed by the applicant and the first informant
respectively are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajendra Kumar
and Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 384 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS and 3/2/27 Arms
Act registered at Police Station Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency
of the trial.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant and three
other co-accused persons have been assigned general role of assault by fire-arm as a
result of which, brother of the first informant received ante mortem gun shot injuries
and died. It is further submitted that first informant Kuldeep and his brother Raj
Kamal in their statements recorded under section 180 BNSS have assigned specific
role of assault by fire-arm to the applicant whereas they reached the place of
occurrence after hearing the sound of gunshot. It is further submitted that as per the
postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased has been shown as ante mortem gun
shot injury. It is also submitted that till date only two witnesses have been examined
by the learned trial court and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. It is also
submitted that co-accused Abhishek and Bijendra @ Vijje have already been granted
bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2025 and 20.11.2025
passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32989 of 2025 and 32714 of 2025
respectively. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case
which has been duly explained in the memo of application. It is further submitted that
applicant has been languishing in jail since 01.8.2025 and he undertakes that he will
not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of
BAIL No. 45481 of 2025
2
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that the first informant
Kuldeep as well as Raj Kamal are the eye witnesses and they have assigned specific
role of assault by firearm to the applicant and the deceased has received only one ante
mortem fire arm injury.
6. As per the FIR, applicant and three other accused persons Abhishek, Bijendra and
Tapesh are said to have surrounded the brother of the first informant and opened fire
on him as a result of which he received ante mortem gun shot injury and died and they
took the dead body of the deceased in their vehicle and left the said vehicle outside the
village. During investigation, the first informant Kuldeep and his brother Raj Kamal
has stated in their statements recorded under section 180 BNSS that they reached the
place of occurrence when they heard the noise of gunshot and saw all the accused
persons running away and his brother was lying on the ground. as per the postmortem
report, cause of death of the deceased has been shown as ante mortem gun shot injury.
Till date, only two witnesses have been examined by the learned trial court and co-
accused Abhishek and Bijendra @ Vijje have already been granted bail by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. Applicant has criminal history of one case which has
been duly explained in the memo of application and he has been languishing in jail
since 01.8.2025.
7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
8. Let the applicant Vivek involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with 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 not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(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 the trial
court.
BAIL No. 45481 of 2025
3
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
11. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
September 9, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…