Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7205 of 2025 Kunwar Bahadur Rathore State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav
Legal Reasoning
Srivastav, Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Shukla, G.A. Srivastava Court No. - 51 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 716 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Auraiya, District- Auraiya with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.. 3. The second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 716 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Auraiya, District- Auraiya with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14427 of 2021. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of alleged incident. The only material shown against applicant is that applicant and co- accused persons were seen taking away the deceased in the car and thereafter, his dead body was recovered but the said allegation is wholly false. The applicant has no motive to commit murder of deceased. There is no F.S.L. report regarding the alleged blood-stained brick shown recovered at the instance of applicant. Regarding recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased from the mill of the applicant, it was submitted that it cannot be believed that the applicant-accused would keep the blood stained clothes of the deceased with him. The alleged recovery of blood stained clothes and motorcycle of deceased is false and baseless. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2020 but only part statement of one witness has been recorded so far. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. It was submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. 2 BAIL No. 7205 of 2025 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits and no new ground for entertaining second bail application has been shown. It was submitted that there is credible evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with applicant and the co-accused while he was taken away in the car of the applicant and thereafter, his dead body was recovered. The brick, used in the alleged incident, has also recovered at the instance of applicant-accused. The blood-stained clothes and the motorcycle of the deceased were also recovered at the instance of applicant from the mill premises of the applicant. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the second bail application of applicant is hereby rejected. 7. However, keeping in view of period of incarceration of applicant, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment." 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of alleged incident. The only material shown against applicant is that applicant and co-accused persons were seen taking away the deceased in the car and thereafter, his dead body was recovered but the said allegation is wholly false. The applicant has no motive to commit murder of deceased. There is no F.S.L. report regarding the alleged blood-stained brick shown recovered at the instance of applicant. Regarding recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased, it was submitted that it cannot be believed that the applicant-accused would keep the blood stained clothes of the deceased with him. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of nine months but during trial only two witnesses have examined so far, whereas 47 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet. The applicant is in jail since 10.09.2020 and thus he has already undergone detention of more than five years. It was also submitted that applicant is suffering from heart related serious illness and he has to be taken by jail authorities to hospital. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The applicant has no criminal history. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant may be granted bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is evidence that applicant was involved in the incident and there is evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with applicant. It was submitted that brick used in the incident was also 3 BAIL No. 7205 of 2025 recovered at the instance of applicant. The applicant is not suffering from any serious illness. It was submitted that applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. Perusal of record shows that case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has already undergone detention of more than five years. During trial only 2-3 witnesses have been examined so far and that there are number of witnesses, who are yet to be examined. It is well-settled that right of speedy trial of accused is part of fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, particularly period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant - Kunwar Bahadur Rathore involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 10, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad