High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Abhishek Singh, for the complainant/ informant.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2020 in Case Crime No.404 of 2020 under Sections 34, 302, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R., wherein the allegation of assault, beating and to kill 2 persons have been levelled against 14 persons including the present applicant. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Court rejecting the bail of co-accused in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14957 of 2021, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent-State, as well as Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate and Ms. Tejaswani Bajpai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, appearing for complainant, and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused- applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0404 of 2020, under Sections 34, 302, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

3. It is alleged that the accused-applicant and other accused, named in the FIR, started assaulting Subhash and Alok; hearing alarm raised by these two persons, several family members of the complainant reached on the spot and tried to intervene; at that time, the accused-applicant and co- accused fired at the family members of the complainant as a result thereof, Sunil and Mukesh had died; injuries have also been received by eye- witnesses; postmortem reports corroborate the prosecution story to the extent that the two deceased had died because of firearm injuries received by them.

4. The accused-applicant and co-accused Vijay Singh have been assigned the role of firing. There are injured eye-witnesses, who have given statement that it was the accused-applicant and co-accused, who had fired and caused death of the deceased.

5. Considering the heinousness of the offence, evidence available on record against the accused-applicant and societal impact, this Court does not find it a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail is hereby refused and the application is rejected. However, the trial Court should make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is produced. "

4. Learned counsel has stated that while rejecting the bail of the co-accused - Munendra Pratap Singh, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of 1 year but more than 3 years and 3 months period have passed, the trial has not been concluded inasmuch as out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 2 fact witnesses have been examined and 3 other witnesses have been examines. Learned counsel has further submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses are the fact witness. Therefore, considering the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. So, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. 4 years and 9 months and also considering the fact that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. So, in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." In the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Apex Court has observed that while granting the bail to the accused, the long period of incarceration may be considered when it is noticed that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial with promptness.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases of the present applicant in supplementary affidavit filed on 04.07.2025. The present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there are total 17 prosecution witnesses, out of them 2 fact witnesses and 3 other witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future; the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. 4 years and 9 months; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Vijay Singh, 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 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. (ii) 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Abhishek Singh, for the complainant/ informant.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2020 in Case Crime No.404 of 2020 under Sections 34, 302, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R., wherein the allegation of assault, beating and to kill 2 persons have been levelled against 14 persons including the present applicant. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by this Court rejecting the bail of co-accused in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14957 of 2021, which reads as under:- "1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent-State, as well as Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate and Ms. Tejaswani Bajpai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, appearing for complainant, and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused- applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0404 of 2020, under Sections 34, 302, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

3. It is alleged that the accused-applicant and other accused, named in the FIR, started assaulting Subhash and Alok; hearing alarm raised by these two persons, several family members of the complainant reached on the spot and tried to intervene; at that time, the accused-applicant and co- accused fired at the family members of the complainant as a result thereof, Sunil and Mukesh had died; injuries have also been received by eye- witnesses; postmortem reports corroborate the prosecution story to the extent that the two deceased had died because of firearm injuries received by them.

4. The accused-applicant and co-accused Vijay Singh have been assigned the role of firing. There are injured eye-witnesses, who have given statement that it was the accused-applicant and co-accused, who had fired and caused death of the deceased.

5. Considering the heinousness of the offence, evidence available on record against the accused-applicant and societal impact, this Court does not find it a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail is hereby refused and the application is rejected. However, the trial Court should make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is produced. "

4. Learned counsel has stated that while rejecting the bail of the co-accused - Munendra Pratap Singh, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of 1 year but more than 3 years and 3 months period have passed, the trial has not been concluded inasmuch as out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 2 fact witnesses have been examined and 3 other witnesses have been examines. Learned counsel has further submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 12 prosecution witnesses are the fact witness. Therefore, considering the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. So, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. 4 years and 9 months and also considering the fact that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. So, in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." In the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Apex Court has observed that while granting the bail to the accused, the long period of incarceration may be considered when it is noticed that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial with promptness.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases of the present applicant in supplementary affidavit filed on 04.07.2025. The present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant/ informant has, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there are total 17 prosecution witnesses, out of them 2 fact witnesses and 3 other witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future; the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. 4 years and 9 months; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Vijay Singh, 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 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. (ii) 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif