High Court

1. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 07.10.2019 in Case Crime No.672 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120B & 34 IPC, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Sultanpur.

3. This is the third bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6440 of 2021 has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 17.10.2022 and the second bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7195 of 2023 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. vide order dated 28.08.2023. While rejecting the second bail application vide order dated 28.08.2023, this Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and make all out efforts to conclude the same within next one year and if the trial is not concluded within next one year or sufficient progress towards the culmination of the trial is not made, the applicant may renew his prayer for bail after passage of aforesaid stipulated period.

4. Sri Shukla has submitted that since this is the third bail application, therefore, he may not address the merit of the case, which has been addressed in the first and second bail applications, but the specific direction of this Court should be abide by the learned Trial Court and the trial should have been concluded within a period of one year, but about two years' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded. He has submitted that till date, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future. So, the aforesaid ground alone may be considered as a new ground to allow this bail application. Sri Shukla has further submitted that four co-accused persons, namely, Mohd. Afsar, Mohd. Aijaz, Mohd. Shamim and Shamshad alias Qawwal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.11.2024, 05.12.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.3117 of 2024, 7744 of 2022, 10898 of 2021 and 140 of 2024 respectively. The bail granted to co-accused Mohd. Afsar vide order dated 12.11.2024 (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1769 of 2025, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further submission of Sri Shukla is that there is no previous criminal history of the present applicant but subsequently, Gangster Act has been imposed, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

5. Sri Shukla has, therefore, submitted that considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for more than five years and nine months despite the order having been passed by this Court to conclude the trial within one year, the same has not been concluded till date and out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near further, so the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

7. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the bail application but he has submitted that he is unable to comment on the pace of trial inasmuch as that fact is beyond his control.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the second bail application to conclude the trial within a period of one year, about two years' period has passed but the trial has not been concluded till date; out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than five years and nine months; the bail granted to co- accused Mohd. Afsar, who is having similar role, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; three other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Mohd. Safdar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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/ 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 the 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

1. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 07.10.2019 in Case Crime No.672 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120B & 34 IPC, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Sultanpur.

3. This is the third bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6440 of 2021 has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 17.10.2022 and the second bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7195 of 2023 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. vide order dated 28.08.2023. While rejecting the second bail application vide order dated 28.08.2023, this Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and make all out efforts to conclude the same within next one year and if the trial is not concluded within next one year or sufficient progress towards the culmination of the trial is not made, the applicant may renew his prayer for bail after passage of aforesaid stipulated period.

4. Sri Shukla has submitted that since this is the third bail application, therefore, he may not address the merit of the case, which has been addressed in the first and second bail applications, but the specific direction of this Court should be abide by the learned Trial Court and the trial should have been concluded within a period of one year, but about two years' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded. He has submitted that till date, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future. So, the aforesaid ground alone may be considered as a new ground to allow this bail application. Sri Shukla has further submitted that four co-accused persons, namely, Mohd. Afsar, Mohd. Aijaz, Mohd. Shamim and Shamshad alias Qawwal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.11.2024, 05.12.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.3117 of 2024, 7744 of 2022, 10898 of 2021 and 140 of 2024 respectively. The bail granted to co-accused Mohd. Afsar vide order dated 12.11.2024 (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1769 of 2025, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further submission of Sri Shukla is that there is no previous criminal history of the present applicant but subsequently, Gangster Act has been imposed, which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

5. Sri Shukla has, therefore, submitted that considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for more than five years and nine months despite the order having been passed by this Court to conclude the trial within one year, the same has not been concluded till date and out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near further, so the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

7. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the bail application but he has submitted that he is unable to comment on the pace of trial inasmuch as that fact is beyond his control.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the second bail application to conclude the trial within a period of one year, about two years' period has passed but the trial has not been concluded till date; out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than five years and nine months; the bail granted to co- accused Mohd. Afsar, who is having similar role, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; three other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Mohd. Safdar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (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/ 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 the 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]