High Court · 2025

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant(s) to press this bail application even in the revised list despite the fact that there two learned counsels appearing in the matter.

3. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.7.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5430 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Matter taken up through video conferencing. Heard Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief-holder for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant is not present. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants namely, Kundan and Collector, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 353 of 2020, under Sections 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the first information report has been registered by Mukesh Harijan naming the applicants and one other person namely, Prince as an accused but the first informant is not an eyewitness to the incident. It is argued that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant has stated the same as that of the first information report. Later on one Rishikesh has been introduced as a witness to the fact of seeing the deceased girl going to the field for easing herself and from there three named accused persons including the applicants were seen coming out after which his nephew Ankit came there and informed him that the girl was lying in the field on which he and other persons rushed to the spot and saw the girl lying in a pool of blood. They took the girl to the hospital where the Doctor declared her 'dead'. It is argued that except the said evidence, there is no other evidence whatsoever to connect the applicants in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness to the murder. It is further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in paragraph 38 of the affidavit and are in jail since 1.10.2020. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstances of the case is complete. In the present matter, the girl who was aged about 11 years was done to death. The applicants are named in the FIR and were seen coming out from the place of occurrence and immediately thereafter the deceased girl was seen lying in a pool of blood. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicants is based on cogent evidence. It is further argued that the deceased girl had received ten injuries on her body and the cause of death, as opined by the Doctor, is heamorrhagic shock with asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicants is true and correct and their bail application deserves to be rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the deceased girl at the time of the incident was aged about 11 years and the applicants were seen coming out from the place of occurrence where the dead body was immediately found and there were ten injuries on her body. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing." concerned.

5. Even previously on 18.2.2025 there was no appearance from the side of the applicant even in the revised list to press the bail application but in the interest of justice as a last opportunity the matter was adjourned and it was observed that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right. The matter was directed to be listed peremptorily. The matter thus is listed today peremptorily. The said order reads as under: "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicants to press this second bail application despite the fact that there are two learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicants. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

2. It is informed by learned members of Bar present in the Court that there is again severe traffic jam in the city all over.

3. In view of the same, in the interest of justice, as a last opportunity, the matter is adjourned for today.

4. Let the matter be listed on 06.03.2025 peremptorily.

5. It is made clear that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right."

6. Today again even in the revised list there is no representation from the side of the applicant despite the fact that there two learned counsels appearing in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. No one appears on behalf of the applicant(s) to press this bail application even in the revised list despite the fact that there two learned counsels appearing in the matter.

3. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.7.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 5430 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Matter taken up through video conferencing. Heard Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief-holder for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant is not present. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants namely, Kundan and Collector, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 353 of 2020, under Sections 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the first information report has been registered by Mukesh Harijan naming the applicants and one other person namely, Prince as an accused but the first informant is not an eyewitness to the incident. It is argued that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant has stated the same as that of the first information report. Later on one Rishikesh has been introduced as a witness to the fact of seeing the deceased girl going to the field for easing herself and from there three named accused persons including the applicants were seen coming out after which his nephew Ankit came there and informed him that the girl was lying in the field on which he and other persons rushed to the spot and saw the girl lying in a pool of blood. They took the girl to the hospital where the Doctor declared her 'dead'. It is argued that except the said evidence, there is no other evidence whatsoever to connect the applicants in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness to the murder. It is further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in paragraph 38 of the affidavit and are in jail since 1.10.2020. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstances of the case is complete. In the present matter, the girl who was aged about 11 years was done to death. The applicants are named in the FIR and were seen coming out from the place of occurrence and immediately thereafter the deceased girl was seen lying in a pool of blood. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicants is based on cogent evidence. It is further argued that the deceased girl had received ten injuries on her body and the cause of death, as opined by the Doctor, is heamorrhagic shock with asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicants is true and correct and their bail application deserves to be rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the deceased girl at the time of the incident was aged about 11 years and the applicants were seen coming out from the place of occurrence where the dead body was immediately found and there were ten injuries on her body. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing." concerned.

5. Even previously on 18.2.2025 there was no appearance from the side of the applicant even in the revised list to press the bail application but in the interest of justice as a last opportunity the matter was adjourned and it was observed that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right. The matter was directed to be listed peremptorily. The matter thus is listed today peremptorily. The said order reads as under: "1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicants to press this second bail application despite the fact that there are two learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicants. Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State is present.

2. It is informed by learned members of Bar present in the Court that there is again severe traffic jam in the city all over.

3. In view of the same, in the interest of justice, as a last opportunity, the matter is adjourned for today.

4. Let the matter be listed on 06.03.2025 peremptorily.

5. It is made clear that the matter will not be adjourned on the next date as a matter of right."

6. Today again even in the revised list there is no representation from the side of the applicant despite the fact that there two learned counsels appearing in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Naresh NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad