SHANU @ HASEEN MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the guidelines laid down by the High Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the applicant had made an application for urgency which was placed before the Court concerned and it has been allowed and it is in this fashion that the aforesaid bail application has been placed before this Court.

(2.) The Court has heard Shir Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Singh Singh Tomar, learned AGA via video conference.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has falsely been implicated inasmuch as the background of the present FIR arises on account of the fact that the injured in the present case namely Shivam Singh is the person, who had shot the applicant in the year 2017 against whom the FIR was lodged in the year 2017 wherein Shivam Singh is the named accused along with one Sonu and Sharukh. In the said Case Crime No.588/2017, the police has filed the charge-sheet and thus in order to put pressure on the applicant to compromise the alleged case has been concocted.