Ravi vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 10685 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravi vs State Of U.P. on 16 September, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165554
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29238 of 2025   
 
   Ravi    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Anurag Vajpeyi, Praveen Kumar Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 67
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.     

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2025, under Sections 109, 303(2), 317(2), 317(5) BNS and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sector-24, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY :

4. Recovery Memo of one stolen scooty used in the incident, Jupiter blue color without number plate, one mobile phone of Vivo company blue colour, and one country made pistol 315 bore with one empty cartridge of 315 bore in the barrel and one live cartridge of 315 bore and one accused arrested under section 109/317(2)/317(5)/303 (2) BNS and 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Sector 24, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

5. On 09.07.25, SI Shivang Kumar along with other colleagues with his private vehicle left from Police Station vide, GD No. 35 at 11.45 am for supervision of law and order, checking suspicious persons/vehicles. They put up a barrier in front of pillar no. 94 in the middle of Gijhoud elevated red light on the right side from Sector 54 T-point. other police personnel also reached the spot and were talking regarding crime, criminals and incidents that took place in the area, when suddenly a person riding a scooty was seen coming from the NTPC side, who, on seeing the police checking, got startled and suddenly tried to run. The scooter turned back and started running but due to the high speed the scooter got unbalanced and hit the divider and the driver fell down.

6. As the scooter fell, the person riding the scooter took out a gun from his pocket and threatened to kill them thereby fired directly at the policeman, due to which the policemen narrowly escaped and without giving any chance for another fire, the policemen fired in self-defense and aimed at the part below the torso in order to cause minimum damage to the criminal and S.I. Shivang Singh, SI Abhay Pratap Singh and Constable 2981 Digvijay Singh fired one shot from their official pistols, and the criminal started moaning.

7. The policemen immediately surrounded the injured criminal and using necessary force caught him on the spot at a distance of about 200 meters from the checking point in the jungle of Sector 54 at around 14.35. On noticing blood flowing from the left leg of the criminal, the wounds of the injured criminal were tied with a cloth as a humanitarian point of view at the spot.

8. After asking the name and address of the injured person, search was undertaken. The arrested criminal told his name as Ravi son of Bablu resident of house no. 458 block 33 Trilokpuri police station Mayur Vihar phase-I, Delhi aged about 29 years. On searching his clothes, one illegal country made pistol of 315 bore in working condition was recovered. On opening the barrel of the pistol, one empty cartridge was found stuck inside the barrel. On the bottom of which there is a mark of firing pin which was carefully taken out and a strong smell of freshly fired gunpowder was observed. The empty cartridge was put back inside the barrel and closed and one live cartridge of 315 bore was found in the left hand on the rim of which 8MM KF was written and 750 rupees were recovered from the left pocket. He confessed having stolen the said scooty and having snatched the mobile.

9. The chassis number of the recovered scooty MD626EG4AK3K80175 was searched on the e-challan application and the registration number of the said vehicle was mentioned as DL3SEL7712. When the vehicle owner was talked to, he told that his scooty was stolen a while ago, regarding which he had uploaded an application on UP Cop, but due to family assignments, could not institute a complaint at the police station. A complaint was received from the owner.

10. The shell of the cartridge fired by the police was kept in a box and covered in a cloth and a sample stamp was prepared by sealing and surveying. The mobile phone recovered was kept in a transparent plastic box sealing it and a sample stamp was prepared. This crime of the accused Ravi falls under Section 109/317(2)/317(5)/303 (2) BNS and 3/25/27 Arms Act.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :

11. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

12. The allegations as levied in the FIR are entirely false, preposterous and bare no iota of truth in them and rather merely are farrago of distortions, embellishments levied by the first informant to falsely implicate the applicant in the present case. The statement of the owner of scooty namely Ashok Kumar Chaudhary indicates that no FIR ever was instituted till the instant FIR.

13. The applicant himself has sustained gun shot injury in the instant case and the falsity of the prosecution story can itself be inferred from the fact that none of the police personnel had sustained any injury on their body. False recovery of country made pistol and an empty cartridge along with live cartridge have been foisted on the applicant to show good work by the police as cover up.

14. The criminal history of the applicant stands explained as the applicant is on bail in five of those cases and he is not named in nine FIRs mentioned against him. The applicant is even not named in FIR No.40903 of 2024 under section 380/357 IPC, Police Station-Shakarpur, New Delhi and the investigation is pending.

15. As far as FIR No.916 of 2024 under section 380/457 IPC, Police Station-Sakarpur, New Delhi is concerned, no such FIR exists. The applicant has nothing to do with FIR No.80032721 of 2025 under Section 305 BNS, Police Station-Jagatpuri, New Delhi and the investigation is still pending, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2025. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/AGA :-

16. The criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained and only certain FIRs have been appended. Only three bail orders and one personal bond have been appended in the said supplementary affidavit. The applicant has long criminal history of 17 more case in addition to the instant case, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail as the criminal history has not been properly explained.

CONCLUSION :-

17. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025 Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents. Non-disclosure of criminal history itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of bail. The Court directed:

"We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/ sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the 'SYNOPSIS' that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition."

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained and in the light of aforesaid judgment, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

19. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

20. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

September 16, 2025

Sumit S