High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under sections 302/34 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District- Sultanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

3. The prosecution story as alleged in the first information report is that on 7.6.2021 at about 10.00 P.M., Jitendra Kumar Singh alias Pintu Singh, the brother of the complainant was going to Kadipur to his house from the Tea Shop of Thakur Prasad. After some time, one Brahmdeo Singh of village Rajhveerganj Udri informed the complainant on telephone that his brother has been killed by three unknown motorcyclist by shooting him and his dead body and his motorcycle was lying on the side of the road.

4. On getting the information, the complainant reached the place of incident. His nephew Adarsh Singh informed the complainant that few days back, Pankaj and Ramesh Verma had told him that he should tell his father to mend his ways, or else, something bad will happen. The complainant has suspicion that the Pankaj Jaiswal, Ramesh Verma along with Neeraj and Ram Pyarey has conspired to kill his brother.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and his name was cropped up for the first time in the statement of co- accused namely Ramesh Verma, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, incriminating otherwise no other evidence/material against the applicant has been found by the Police during investigation. It is further submitted that the named accused persons in the F.I.R namely Pankaj Jaiswal, Ramesh Verma, Neeraj and Ram Pyarey have already been granted bail by this Court, the copies of which have already been enclosed with the affidavit filed alongwith the bail application.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant is alleged to be one of the three unknown persons and the other two unknown persons whose names cropped up in the statement of co-accused namely Satyam Verma and Gorelal @ Bhanu Pratap Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court and the bail orders of these two accused persons are already on record.

7. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.06.2021.

8. It is further submitted that there are 14 prosecution witnesses in the case, but till date, the statement of not even a single prosecution witness has been recorded, though three years and seven months have passed.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A is unable to dispute the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, but he has pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history of 19 cases and the applicant is a habitual criminal, thus he is not entitled for bail.

10. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the in paragraph-7 of the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has disclosed about his criminal history and in most of the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in two cases, he was convicted, in one case, he was convicted with a fine of Rs. 500 and in one case he was imprisoned and that period has already been undergone by the applicant and in one case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, which is offshoot of the present criminal case, the applicant is languishing in jail.

11. He further submitted that as per the law settled, merely on the basis of antecedents, the claim of the applicant cannot be rejected, it is to be seen from the role of accused in the case in which he has been charged. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi versus State of U.P and another, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 382.

12. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed versus State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2024 9 SCC Page-819 has held that the bail cannot be refused on the ground that the crime committed is serious in nature as the co-accused in a criminal case of serious nature is also entitled for the benefit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that in the present case, the applicant was not named in the F.I.R, his name cropped up for the first time in the statement of the co-accused, otherwise no adverse or incriminating material has been found against he applicant during the investigation done by the Police. The other named co-accused as well as the unnamed co-accused have already been granted bail and even there is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.06.2021 i.e. since last 3 years and 11 months and till date, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined, so it is not known that when the trial will be concluded, so in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

14. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant, Akhilesh Verma, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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.

16. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 DiVYa

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under sections 302/34 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District- Sultanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

3. The prosecution story as alleged in the first information report is that on 7.6.2021 at about 10.00 P.M., Jitendra Kumar Singh alias Pintu Singh, the brother of the complainant was going to Kadipur to his house from the Tea Shop of Thakur Prasad. After some time, one Brahmdeo Singh of village Rajhveerganj Udri informed the complainant on telephone that his brother has been killed by three unknown motorcyclist by shooting him and his dead body and his motorcycle was lying on the side of the road.

4. On getting the information, the complainant reached the place of incident. His nephew Adarsh Singh informed the complainant that few days back, Pankaj and Ramesh Verma had told him that he should tell his father to mend his ways, or else, something bad will happen. The complainant has suspicion that the Pankaj Jaiswal, Ramesh Verma along with Neeraj and Ram Pyarey has conspired to kill his brother.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and his name was cropped up for the first time in the statement of co- accused namely Ramesh Verma, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, incriminating otherwise no other evidence/material against the applicant has been found by the Police during investigation. It is further submitted that the named accused persons in the F.I.R namely Pankaj Jaiswal, Ramesh Verma, Neeraj and Ram Pyarey have already been granted bail by this Court, the copies of which have already been enclosed with the affidavit filed alongwith the bail application.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant is alleged to be one of the three unknown persons and the other two unknown persons whose names cropped up in the statement of co-accused namely Satyam Verma and Gorelal @ Bhanu Pratap Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court and the bail orders of these two accused persons are already on record.

7. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.06.2021.

8. It is further submitted that there are 14 prosecution witnesses in the case, but till date, the statement of not even a single prosecution witness has been recorded, though three years and seven months have passed.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A is unable to dispute the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, but he has pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history of 19 cases and the applicant is a habitual criminal, thus he is not entitled for bail.

10. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the in paragraph-7 of the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has disclosed about his criminal history and in most of the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in two cases, he was convicted, in one case, he was convicted with a fine of Rs. 500 and in one case he was imprisoned and that period has already been undergone by the applicant and in one case under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, which is offshoot of the present criminal case, the applicant is languishing in jail.

11. He further submitted that as per the law settled, merely on the basis of antecedents, the claim of the applicant cannot be rejected, it is to be seen from the role of accused in the case in which he has been charged. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi versus State of U.P and another, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 382.

12. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed versus State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2024 9 SCC Page-819 has held that the bail cannot be refused on the ground that the crime committed is serious in nature as the co-accused in a criminal case of serious nature is also entitled for the benefit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that in the present case, the applicant was not named in the F.I.R, his name cropped up for the first time in the statement of the co-accused, otherwise no adverse or incriminating material has been found against he applicant during the investigation done by the Police. The other named co-accused as well as the unnamed co-accused have already been granted bail and even there is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.06.2021 i.e. since last 3 years and 11 months and till date, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined, so it is not known that when the trial will be concluded, so in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

14. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant, Akhilesh Verma, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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.

16. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 DiVYa