ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant seeks to assail two orders of even date i.e. 23.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the Bail Application No. 624 of 2019, filed by the respondent-Subhash Yadav, and Bail Application No. 4309 of 2019, filed by the respondent-Rajesh Vikram Singh, in Case Crime No. 17 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi were allowed and both the abovementioned respondents have been enlarged on regular bail.

3. The allegations are that the appellant along with his son - Ashfaque Ahmad and his companions were present in front of Jagdishpur Branch of Vijaya Bank when the accused Vanshraj Yadav attacked Ashfaque Ahmad by throwing a grenade, and thereafter, Satai and other accused persons started indiscriminate firing due to which, Ashfaque Ahmad died on the spot and Razi Ahmad @ Manu received injuries. Two accused persons were caught hold on the spot with the help of public. One of them disclosed his name, Amit Chaubey S/o Vindhyachal Chaubey, resident of Bihar while the second accused did not disclose his name. Two country made pistols, two magazines and one mobile phone were recovered from their possession. During the course of interrogation, accused-Amit Chaubey disclosed that the respondent (Rajesh Vikram Singh) and his brother had sent the accused persons for committing the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad. In the FIR, registered on the statement of the appellant, it is further mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,47,700/- cash was recovered from the accused persons, who were caught by the public. It was alleged to be a case of contract killing.

4. During the course of investigation, it was found that while one of the respondents (Subhash Yadav) was allegedly present at the spot at the time of occurrence, the other respondent (Rajesh Vikram Singh) was a part of the conspiracy hatched to eliminate Ashfaque Ahmad. The motive behind elimination of Ashfaque Ahmad was that his father-in-law was a witness in another criminal case registered against Rajesh Vikram Singh under Section 302 IPC in which the above-named respondent was eventually convicted.

5. One of the accused, who allegedly participated in the occurrence, namely, Satish Kumar @ Satai applied for his bail and the High Court vide an order dated 03.09.2021 rejected his prayer observing as follows:

“Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. injury report of the applicant, ante mortem injury of the deceased and the medico legal report of the injured Razi as well as the contents of the F.I.R. No. 168 of 2018 lodged by the wife of the applicant and also considering the criminal antecedent so the applicant, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.”

6. It appears that during the pendency of the above-stated bail application, the respondents (Subhash Yadav and Rajesh Vikram Singh) also moved the High Court for their enlargement on bail. In the case of Subhash Yadav, it was categorically pointed out before the High Court that he was involved in at least 14 criminal cases and was already a convict under Section 302 IPC. While on bail in that case, he was found involved in the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad, in the bail application of the respondent-Rajesh Vikram Singh, the High Court was apprised of the fact that there are 26 criminal cases registered against him, of course, in some of which, he has already been acquitted and in a few cases, he was on bail. In one of the cases - Crime No. 229/2004, under Section 302 IPC etc. he was convicted and in Criminal Appeal No. 497/2008, his conviction and sentence were suspended.

7. The High Court briefly narrated the prosecution case and after noticing the contentions from both sides, concluded that “considering th