Imran @ Imran Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 15 April, 2026

Author: Manish Mathur

Bench: Manish Mathur





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25777
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW  
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3905 of 2025    
 
   Imran @ Imran Khan    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)        
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Abhishek Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Gautam Singh Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
      
 
 Court No. - 12
 
    
 
 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.

2. As per order dated 13.01.2026, notice has been served upon respondent No.2 and a last opportunity was granted for his appearance but no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of appellant are taken on record.

4. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh on First Bail Application No. 3892/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(3) BNS & Sections 3(1)?, 3(1)?, 3(2)va, 3(2)v of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh rejecting bail to appellant.

5. As per contents of First Information Report, incident is said to have taken place on 05.06.2025 at about 04.30 p.m. when the son of informant Pintu Saroj was was called by one Monu to a particular place for purposes of return of loan of Rs.5,000/-. It is stated that when the informant's son reached said place with his friends Satish Saroj and Rohit Bari, five persons including the appellant and co-accused are said to have attacked him inflicting injuries while allegation indicates that appellant opened fire resulting in gunshot injury on the right leg of informant's son.

6. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him and in fact it is a simple case of fracture and not of gunshot injury as would be evident from the documents brought on record with the counter affidavit particularly report dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Community Health Center at 05.35 p.m. in which no such gunshot injury has been indicated. He has also adverted to the report of the Department of Radiology, M.L.N. Medical College dated 09.06.2025 to indicate that no abnormality has been seen in the feet of the injured. He has also adverted to the C.T. scan report of the victim dated 06.06.2025 issued by the M.L.N. Medical College in which also no gunshot injury has been reported.

7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is only subsequently on 14.08.2025 that it was reported that the patient was managed by foreign body removal under local anesthesia on 09.06.2025. The report also indicates fracture on right leg and therefore, it is submitted that the case has been sought to be made better against appellant subsequently.

8. Learned counsel has also adverted to CCTV footage certified under Section 65-B of Evidence Act to submit that the report clearly indicates that incident as having occurred at 18.53 hours and therefore the time stamp is not in consonance with time of incident as reported in the F.I.R. It is submitted that appellant's criminal history of thirteen cases has been duly explained and he has been under incarceration since 29.09.2025 while co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that not only the F.I.R. but the statement of injured also clearly attributes the role of opening fire to the appellant. It is submitted that eyewitness account of Satish Saroj and Rohit Bari also corroborates the allegations levelled against appellant. Learned counsel submits that supplementary report dated 14.08.2025 also clearly indicates removal of foreign body from the victim under local anesthesia on 09.06.2025 clearly indicating the aspect of gunshot injury being suffered due to firing by the appellant. It is further submitted that the aspect that removal of foreign body was under local anesthesia is completely irrelevant once allegations against the appellant are prima facie made out. It is further submitted that previous criminal history of thirteen cases also pertained to the same nature of sections.

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that not only in the F.I.R. but also in the statement of injured specific allegation has been levelled against appellant of having opened fire upon the victim. Although the eyewitness accounts of Rohit Bari and Satish Saroj do not specifically name the appellant but have corroborated the aspect that victim suffered gunshot injuries due to one of the accused opening fire upon him.

11. However, the discordant note appears to be report of Community Health Center on the same day itself barely one hour from the incident and does not indicate any gunshot injury. X-Ray report dated 09.06.2025 also states that there is no abnormality seen. C.T. Scan report dated 06.06.2025 also does not indicate any gunshot injury on the right ankle of the injured. It is only the subsequent supplementary affidavit dated 14.08.2025 which indicates a foreign body removal under local anesthesia. The aforesaid aspects would require to be explained by the prosecution during trial by evidence particularly the aforesaid discrepancy. Another invisible aspect appears to be the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act which indicates time stamp of incident as 18.53 hours, i.e., 06.53 p.m. and not 04.30 p.m. which may also require explanation. Previous criminal history of appellant has already been explained. He is under incarceration since 29.09.2025.

12. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 06.11.2025 is set aside.

14. Let appellant/applicant involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellant/applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial

(ii) The appellant/applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The appellant/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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The appellant/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 appellant/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 Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

(vi) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the appellant/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 Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

15. Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

April 15, 2026

lakshman