High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Shiv Kumar @ Rinku seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.146 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 15.2.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4590 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that trial in the present matter is going on which has not yet concluded. The applicant is in jail since 26.3.2021. It is argued that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the informant and the prosecution version. The informant (P.W.1) has not disclosed the name of the applicant and the same does not corroborate with the prosecution version. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 the affidavit. He has placed before the Court the order-sheet of the trial court which is annexed as S.A-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2024.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the trial is at an advance stage in which statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded after which an application by the accused has been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The same is that the trial has been delayed by the accused persons. There is no fresh and new ground argued, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Shiv Kumar @ Rinku seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.146 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh. The FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 364-A IPC on 24.03.2021 by Shaudan against unknown persons stating therein that on 22.03.2021 at about 6 p.m., his brother's son Surendra Pal went to guard his crops but did not return back. He called on his mobile which was switched- off. He was searched but could not be located. On 23.3.2021, he was searched at relatives places where also he could not be located. In the afternoon at about 1.45 hours a message was received on the phone of his niece that Rs.20 lakhs be given as ransom money within two days and be kept in a train going towards Hyderabad. There was even threat that if police is informed then Surendra Pal will be murdered. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. although reiterated the version of the FIR but had cast suspicion upon Bhupendra resident of village being involved in the matter on the ground that the deceased Surendra Pal and Bhupendra had consumed liquor on the day of incident. Subsequently Bhupendra was arrested by the police who disclosed the name of the applicant in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the present case in the confessional statement of co-accused Bhupendra. The applicant is not involved in the matter. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder of the deceased. The applicant is doing private job in State of Haryana and has no concern with the deceased. It is argued that during the investigation, Section 302, 201 and 34 IPC have been added. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.03.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has been made as an accused during the investigation. The matter is such in which name of the accused could only come during investigation. The dead-body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and three other co-accused persons who took the police to the place where they had buried it. Even there is an allegation of demand of ransom and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased has been murdered. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons, as such the implication of the applicant is there. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased was taken and ransom was demanded, subsequently the dead-body of the deceased which was buried near a river was recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons. The matter is serious in nature. 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."

8. The trial is at an advance stage in which the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. There is no fresh and new ground argued.

9. 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. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Shiv Kumar @ Rinku seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.146 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 15.2.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4590 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that trial in the present matter is going on which has not yet concluded. The applicant is in jail since 26.3.2021. It is argued that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the informant and the prosecution version. The informant (P.W.1) has not disclosed the name of the applicant and the same does not corroborate with the prosecution version. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 the affidavit. He has placed before the Court the order-sheet of the trial court which is annexed as S.A-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2024.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the trial is at an advance stage in which statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded after which an application by the accused has been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The same is that the trial has been delayed by the accused persons. There is no fresh and new ground argued, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Shiv Kumar @ Rinku seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.146 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh. The FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 364-A IPC on 24.03.2021 by Shaudan against unknown persons stating therein that on 22.03.2021 at about 6 p.m., his brother's son Surendra Pal went to guard his crops but did not return back. He called on his mobile which was switched- off. He was searched but could not be located. On 23.3.2021, he was searched at relatives places where also he could not be located. In the afternoon at about 1.45 hours a message was received on the phone of his niece that Rs.20 lakhs be given as ransom money within two days and be kept in a train going towards Hyderabad. There was even threat that if police is informed then Surendra Pal will be murdered. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. although reiterated the version of the FIR but had cast suspicion upon Bhupendra resident of village being involved in the matter on the ground that the deceased Surendra Pal and Bhupendra had consumed liquor on the day of incident. Subsequently Bhupendra was arrested by the police who disclosed the name of the applicant in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the present case in the confessional statement of co-accused Bhupendra. The applicant is not involved in the matter. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder of the deceased. The applicant is doing private job in State of Haryana and has no concern with the deceased. It is argued that during the investigation, Section 302, 201 and 34 IPC have been added. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 26.03.2021. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has been made as an accused during the investigation. The matter is such in which name of the accused could only come during investigation. The dead-body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and three other co-accused persons who took the police to the place where they had buried it. Even there is an allegation of demand of ransom and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased has been murdered. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons, as such the implication of the applicant is there. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased was taken and ransom was demanded, subsequently the dead-body of the deceased which was buried near a river was recovered on the pointing out of the accused persons. The matter is serious in nature. 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."

8. The trial is at an advance stage in which the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. There is no fresh and new ground argued.

9. 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. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad