High Court

fire arms and four were having lathi, bhala (sharp cutting weapon) surrounded the informant and his family members and Harbansh Sinhh exhorted and said that no one should remain alive and by saying this Harbansh Singh shot Jitendra and in this scuffle informant's father Ram Lotan, and five others were injured as a result of firing Jitendra, Sunder Lal and Lal ji died. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that role of firing to the deceased Jitendra has been assigned to co-accused Harbansh Singh. Applicant has been assigned general role along with other eight assailants who are alleged to be armed with firearms. It is submitted that four persons who were assigned to have sharp edged weapon have been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that co-accused Anoop Singh who was also assigned general role like the present applicant has been granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1825/2025 while referring grant of bail to another co- accused Ram Gopal Singh against whom identical allegation was made. It is submitted that false recovery of 12 bore country made pistol is shown to have been recovered from the applicant and from Anoop Singh also there was a recovery of firearm. It is also submitted that role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Anoop Singh. The order dated

24.2.2025 (supra) of the Supreme Court is extracted below : "The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge the order dated

16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6455/2021, dismissing the second application for bail filed by the petitioner, in connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated 25.06.2015, registered at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exactly similarly situated co-accused namely, Ram Gopal Singh, against whom there is identical allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.5315/2024.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of triple murder.

4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the trial has not concluded, if the prosecution was so serious, there is no satisfactory answer.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than nine and a half years and similarly situated co- accused having been granted bail, we are of the considered view that the petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." Upon a specific query being made by this Court as to why trial has not been concluded yet and why out of five injured, three injured persons have not been examined, no satisfactory reply could be given although the accused has incarcerated for about 9 years and 7 months. The supreme Court while considering the custody period of co- accused Anoop Singh and also the fact that another co-accused Ram Gopal Singh who was similarly situate, has already been granted bail, has granted bail to the co-accused Anoop Singh. It is prayed on behalf of the applicant that since the role of the applicant and the co-accused Anoop Singh is similar therefore, applicant may be also be enlarged on bail. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2015 however, has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Perused the record. On due consideration to the period of custody gone into by the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history however, he is languishing in jail since 26.06.2015, judgment of supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 so also the bail order of Anoop Singh (supra), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Satish Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) 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. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

fire arms and four were having lathi, bhala (sharp cutting weapon) surrounded the informant and his family members and Harbansh Sinhh exhorted and said that no one should remain alive and by saying this Harbansh Singh shot Jitendra and in this scuffle informant's father Ram Lotan, and five others were injured as a result of firing Jitendra, Sunder Lal and Lal ji died. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that role of firing to the deceased Jitendra has been assigned to co-accused Harbansh Singh. Applicant has been assigned general role along with other eight assailants who are alleged to be armed with firearms. It is submitted that four persons who were assigned to have sharp edged weapon have been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that co-accused Anoop Singh who was also assigned general role like the present applicant has been granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1825/2025 while referring grant of bail to another co- accused Ram Gopal Singh against whom identical allegation was made. It is submitted that false recovery of 12 bore country made pistol is shown to have been recovered from the applicant and from Anoop Singh also there was a recovery of firearm. It is also submitted that role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Anoop Singh. The order dated

24.2.2025 (supra) of the Supreme Court is extracted below : "The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge the order dated

16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6455/2021, dismissing the second application for bail filed by the petitioner, in connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated 25.06.2015, registered at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exactly similarly situated co-accused namely, Ram Gopal Singh, against whom there is identical allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.5315/2024.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of triple murder.

4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the trial has not concluded, if the prosecution was so serious, there is no satisfactory answer.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than nine and a half years and similarly situated co- accused having been granted bail, we are of the considered view that the petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." Upon a specific query being made by this Court as to why trial has not been concluded yet and why out of five injured, three injured persons have not been examined, no satisfactory reply could be given although the accused has incarcerated for about 9 years and 7 months. The supreme Court while considering the custody period of co- accused Anoop Singh and also the fact that another co-accused Ram Gopal Singh who was similarly situate, has already been granted bail, has granted bail to the co-accused Anoop Singh. It is prayed on behalf of the applicant that since the role of the applicant and the co-accused Anoop Singh is similar therefore, applicant may be also be enlarged on bail. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2015 however, has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Perused the record. On due consideration to the period of custody gone into by the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history however, he is languishing in jail since 26.06.2015, judgment of supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 so also the bail order of Anoop Singh (supra), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Satish Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) 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. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-