Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:77107
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5208 of 2024
Brijesh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
R.B.S. Rathaur, Ali Moid, Atul Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15 RESERVED ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED ON 25.11.2025
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 03.01.2024 at about 8:00 p.m., near the house of the complainant, in front of the door of Ramsukh Singh on kharanja, the accused persons Brijesh Singh, Bahadur Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, and Ramdev Kori allegedly fired upon the complainant?s grandson, namely Ram Sagar Singh @ Badal Singh, with a firearm. After being shot, the injured came inside the house and disclosed to the complainant that the accused persons had fired upon him. The injured was thereafter referred to Lucknow for treatment by the doctors of CHC Musafirkhana.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant is not an eye-witness, and the FIR was lodged only on the disclosure allegedly made by the injured. After a lapse of several days, the statement of the injured was recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein initially he levelled a general allegation against all the three accused persons, but upon query put by the Investigating Officer the injured replied that it was the applicant Brijesh Singh who had shot him.
4. It is submitted that the Hon?ble Supreme Court has held in several decisions that the Investigating Officer cannot record the statement of a witness in a question-answer form, and such a procedure vitiates the evidentiary value of the statement as it ceases to be free and voluntary. Injury No. 1 has been opined to be grievous, whereas Injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature.
5. Attention has been drawn towards the order-sheet dated 17.07.2025, wherein upon objection raised by the learned A.G.A. that the cross-examination of PW-2 (injured) was still going on and two eye-witnesses were yet to be examined, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the cross-examination of PW-2 at the earliest. Subsequently, on an application moved by the prosecution, the two alleged eye-witnesses Ram Sukh Singh and Prabhat Singh were discharged due to hostility vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the trial court.
6. It is further submitted that during his examination-in-chief, PW-2 (injured) stated that he was shot from a distance of 10 feet, whereas PW-3, the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination, has categorically stated that the injuries were caused from a close-range shot, resulting in natural doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution version. Reliance has been placed on Modi?s Medical Jurisprudence and on the judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192.
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that it is a heinous offence.
8. Perused the record.
9. As per the report of the learned trial court dated 22.08.2025, PW-2 (injured) has been examined and his examination stands concluded. The eye-witnesses, namely Ram Sukh and Prabhat Singh, have been discharged on the application filed by the prosecution. Thus, no fact witnesses remain to be examined.
10. The injuries sustained by the injured are as under:-
"Injury-
(i) Penetrating wound (2cm x 1 cm) x muscle deep of left side of naval about 4 cm below from naval. Inverted margin, Tattooing & burning is present.
Adv. 1. USG whole abdo.
2. Adv. - X-Ray Abdomen (ext...)
(ii) Penetrating wound (2cm x 1 cm) x muscle deep on right elbow
Adv. X-Ray Rt. Elbow Af Lat
(iii) Penetrating would (2cm x 1 cm) x muscle deep on right hip about 9 cm above from knee joint
X-Ray Pelvis AP view (whole)
Injuries 1 to 3 margins are inverted, burning is present, no bleeding is present. Only entry wound is present & no exit wound is present. Tattooing is present."
11. Perusal of the injury report it appears that out of the three penetrating wounds, the first penetrating wound is on the left side of the navel about 4 cm away and is of grievous nature. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature. Tattooing and burning are present on Injury No. 1.
12. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (supra) held as under:
?11) Admittedly, there is variance in the statements of PW-8 and PW-6 with regard to the distance between the deceased and the appellant-accused as stated above. In this fact situation, it is imperative to quote the ?Phenomena observed in Firearm Injuries or Short Holes on Clothing? from Modi?s Jurisprudence (24th Edition) which is as under:-
Phenomena Range and Remarks
1.
Flame/burning scorching/singeing.
Revolver/pistols?within about 5-8 cm generally. Rifles?within about 15-20 cm generally. Shotguns?may show evidence of scorching upto 30-10 cm
2.
Smoke/powder marks
Rifles generally upto about 30 cm (blackening) and about 100 cm (powder residues). Handguns upto about 60 cm.
3.
Tattooing
Handguns upto about 60 cm. Rifles upto 75 cm generally. Shotguns upto 100-300 m (may be found after careful search at higher range).
In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. In the case on hand, the contradiction, i.e., the distance of fire, is material and in our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to convict the appellant-accused by ignoring such an important aspect."
13. A perusal of the statement of PW-3 (doctor) who medically examined the injured shows that he has opined that the injuries were caused from a very close range, whereas PW-2 has stated otherwise. Thus, prima facie, there appears to be a strong contradiction between the medical evidence and the oral testimony of the injured. This, coupled with the manner in which the statement of the injured was recorded by the Investigating Officer, raises serious doubt. All fact witnesses stand examined as per the trial court report, and the two alleged eye-witnesses have already been discharged.
14. Considering the overall facts of the case, including the applicant?s criminal history of nine cases, out of which he has been acquitted in six cases and is on bail in the remaining three minor cases; the injured?s own admission of having a criminal history of thirteen cases; the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 05.01.2024, the strong contradictions between the medical and ocular evidence, and there being no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, and in view of the law laid down in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.
15. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant Brijesh Singh be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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.
(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.
(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 under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).
17. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
November 25, 2025
Madhu D.R/P.S
