State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Daud, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Fareed, learned counsel for informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 637 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 after considering the fact that applicant along with co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad caused fatal injury to the deceased but after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025 and

26.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22783 of 2025 and 22059 of 2025 respectively and their bail orders have been annexed at pages 100 and 105 of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 filed in support of instant bail application and on facts, case of applicant is almost at par with them. 2 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025

5. He next submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and till date out of total nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only two witnesses could be examined and therefore trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and after considering the entire facts of the case, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court and as far as allegation to cause injury to the deceased is concerned, the case of applicant is at par with them.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only two witnesses could be examined and applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed after considering the fact that it is a case in which one person lost his life and two persons sustained injuries and applicant and co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad were attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased but it reflects, after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court and on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that:- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different 3 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025 courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

12. Further, applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years. Considering the long incarceration of applicant, a detailed report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only one could be examined but this report is of March, 2025 and as per learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for informant since then PW-2 has also been examined.

13. Be that as it may, it reflects, out of total nine witnesses of the charge- sheet only two witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal and even from the report of court concerned it could not be reflected, applicant is causing delay in trial.

14. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even is serious cases an accused can be released on bail and considering the fact of the case it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Sameer be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper 4 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025 with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Daud, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Fareed, learned counsel for informant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 637 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2025 after considering the fact that applicant along with co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad caused fatal injury to the deceased but after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025 and

26.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22783 of 2025 and 22059 of 2025 respectively and their bail orders have been annexed at pages 100 and 105 of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 filed in support of instant bail application and on facts, case of applicant is almost at par with them. 2 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025

5. He next submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and till date out of total nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only two witnesses could be examined and therefore trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and after considering the entire facts of the case, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court and as far as allegation to cause injury to the deceased is concerned, the case of applicant is at par with them.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only two witnesses could be examined and applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed after considering the fact that it is a case in which one person lost his life and two persons sustained injuries and applicant and co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad were attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased but it reflects, after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused Bhoora @ Sabir and Shahjad have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court and on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that:- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different 3 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025 courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

12. Further, applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 i.e. for last more than three years. Considering the long incarceration of applicant, a detailed report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only one could be examined but this report is of March, 2025 and as per learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for informant since then PW-2 has also been examined.

13. Be that as it may, it reflects, out of total nine witnesses of the charge- sheet only two witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal and even from the report of court concerned it could not be reflected, applicant is causing delay in trial.

14. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even is serious cases an accused can be released on bail and considering the fact of the case it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Sameer be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper 4 BAIL No. 1667 of 2025 with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad