High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Saddam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 13 of 2023, under Sections 366, 328, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr.

5. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37986 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the trial six witnesses have been examined and two witnesses being police personnel remained to be examined. There is inordinate delay in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.12.2023. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that since two witnesses who remain to be examined are police personnel, appropriate steps shall be taken for expeditious recording of their evidence and even the possibility of their evidence to be recorded through video conferencing as per circular of the D.G.P, U.P., Lucknow shall be seen if there is no impediment, the statements shall be recorded through it. It is further submitted that the trial will not be delayed for any reason. Since the trial is at an advance stage, the release of the applicant may have an adverse effect in the trial. In so far as the witnesses of fact are concerned, they have supported the prosecution case. The prayer for bail be thus 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 14.12.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned AGA 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 Saddam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.13 of 2023, under Sections 366, 328, 302, 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 08.1.2023 under Section 363 I.P.C. by Yusuf against the applicant and two other accused persons namely Munaf and Bilal alleging therein that on 06.1.2023 at about 11:00 p.m. his minor daughter aged about 15 years went to ease outside the house where the accused persons put her in a vehicle and kidnapped her. On her shout people of locality being Arif and Asraf came there and saw the accused persons taking her forcibly. They tried to stop the said vehicle but the vehicle was not stopped. The dead body of the girl was recovered on 23.1.2023 at about 23:52 hours and the doctor opined the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of smothering and the time since death is about 02 weeks.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant was arrested on 20.1.2023 and after his arrest the dead body was recovered on 23.1.2023. It is argued that the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the applicant being last seen with the deceased on 6.1.2023, confession of the applicant and then the motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature and there is no eye witness to the murder and implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not co-operating in the investigation. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-47 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.1.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was last seen with the deceased after which the deceased was not found. The time since death corroborates with the time of last seeing the deceased with the applicant. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are two eye witnesses who saw the deceased being kidnapped by the accused persons. The bail thus be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is allegation of he and other accused persons kidnapping the deceased. Time since death corroborates with the time of incident of kidnapping. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage."

8. The trial in the present matter is going on in which six witnesses have been examined and two witnesses being police personnel remain to be examined. Learned counsel for the State assures the Court that since two witnesses remain to be examined are police personnel, their testimony shall be recorded at the earliest and if needed, the same shall be recorded through video conferencing. There is nothing on record to discard the same. The trial is at an advance stage. The release of the applicant at this stage would not be in the fitness of things as being have an adverse effect in trial.

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.

10. Learned counsel for the State shall make endeavor for expeditious examination of remaining two witnesses who are police personnel as stated by him above. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Saddam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 13 of 2023, under Sections 366, 328, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr.

5. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37986 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the trial six witnesses have been examined and two witnesses being police personnel remained to be examined. There is inordinate delay in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.12.2023. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that since two witnesses who remain to be examined are police personnel, appropriate steps shall be taken for expeditious recording of their evidence and even the possibility of their evidence to be recorded through video conferencing as per circular of the D.G.P, U.P., Lucknow shall be seen if there is no impediment, the statements shall be recorded through it. It is further submitted that the trial will not be delayed for any reason. Since the trial is at an advance stage, the release of the applicant may have an adverse effect in the trial. In so far as the witnesses of fact are concerned, they have supported the prosecution case. The prayer for bail be thus 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 14.12.2023, the said order reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned AGA 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 Saddam, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.13 of 2023, under Sections 366, 328, 302, 201 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr.

4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 08.1.2023 under Section 363 I.P.C. by Yusuf against the applicant and two other accused persons namely Munaf and Bilal alleging therein that on 06.1.2023 at about 11:00 p.m. his minor daughter aged about 15 years went to ease outside the house where the accused persons put her in a vehicle and kidnapped her. On her shout people of locality being Arif and Asraf came there and saw the accused persons taking her forcibly. They tried to stop the said vehicle but the vehicle was not stopped. The dead body of the girl was recovered on 23.1.2023 at about 23:52 hours and the doctor opined the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of smothering and the time since death is about 02 weeks.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is argued that the applicant was arrested on 20.1.2023 and after his arrest the dead body was recovered on 23.1.2023. It is argued that the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the applicant being last seen with the deceased on 6.1.2023, confession of the applicant and then the motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature and there is no eye witness to the murder and implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not co-operating in the investigation. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-47 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.1.2023.

6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant was last seen with the deceased after which the deceased was not found. The time since death corroborates with the time of last seeing the deceased with the applicant. It is argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are two eye witnesses who saw the deceased being kidnapped by the accused persons. The bail thus be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There is allegation of he and other accused persons kidnapping the deceased. Time since death corroborates with the time of incident of kidnapping. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted.

8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, no case for bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage."

8. The trial in the present matter is going on in which six witnesses have been examined and two witnesses being police personnel remain to be examined. Learned counsel for the State assures the Court that since two witnesses remain to be examined are police personnel, their testimony shall be recorded at the earliest and if needed, the same shall be recorded through video conferencing. There is nothing on record to discard the same. The trial is at an advance stage. The release of the applicant at this stage would not be in the fitness of things as being have an adverse effect in trial.

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.

10. Learned counsel for the State shall make endeavor for expeditious examination of remaining two witnesses who are police personnel as stated by him above. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad