High Court · 2025

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kshitij Pal, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondent and Sri Wagis Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

4. Brief facts of the case are that earlier applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21839 of 2020, which was allowed vide order dated 26.8.2020 on the ground of parity of other co-accused, namely Faim & Nasir, which was enlarged on bail vide orders dated 25.2.2020 & 17.6.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6083 & 11840 of 2020. Against the orders dated 26.8.2020 & 17.6.2020, informant has approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No. 5182 of 2021 in which Apex Court vide order 30.9.2022 cancelling the bail application earlier granted to co-accused with liberty to file fresh bail application after surrendering at an appropriate stage.

5. Bail order of co-accused, namely, Faim dated 25.2.2020 was also challenged before the Apex Court in which Apex Court vide order dated 15.3.2021 has set aside the order dated 25.2.2020 directing the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. When the trial was not concluded, co-accused Faim approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8405 of 2022, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 on the ground that Apex Court has not granted liberty to High Court to revisit the matter. The order dated 31.01.2023 was challenged before the Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No.19921 of 2023 and the Apex Court vide order dated 18.05.2024 granted liberty to co-accused Faim to file fresh bail application in the event, trial could not be completed within one year. When the trial has not been completed within the time given by the Apex Court co-accused Faim approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22652 of 2024 which was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2024. Against the order dated 11.06.2024, informant has again approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 31648 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2024.

6. So far as Nasir is concerned, after surrendering before the trial Court, he has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25208 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court below. Thereafter, bail application No.1800 of 2024 moved on behalf of applicant was rejected by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C./Court No.2, Kasganj vide order dated 30.11.2024. After that, he has again approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1611 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 7.2.2025 allowed the bail application. Against that, informant has approached the Apex Court upon which Diary No.1275 of 2025 was allotted, but till date no order has been passed. Not only this other co-accused Aarif has also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7156 of 2025.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant firmly submitted that in the FIR, only general role has been assigned to the applicant coupled with this fact that he is having no criminal history. He next submitted that he was surrendered before the trial Court on 24.11.2022 and from that date, he is languishing in jail and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

8. Sri Wagis Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the factual submission so argued by learned counsel for the applicant. Further, they could not distinguish the role of the applicant with the co-accused faim.

9. Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant- Qamruddin involved in Case Crime No. 438 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 34 of IPC, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (2) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (3) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (4) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

11. In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Junaid JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kshitij Pal, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondent and Sri Wagis Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

4. Brief facts of the case are that earlier applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21839 of 2020, which was allowed vide order dated 26.8.2020 on the ground of parity of other co-accused, namely Faim & Nasir, which was enlarged on bail vide orders dated 25.2.2020 & 17.6.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6083 & 11840 of 2020. Against the orders dated 26.8.2020 & 17.6.2020, informant has approached the Apex Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No. 5182 of 2021 in which Apex Court vide order 30.9.2022 cancelling the bail application earlier granted to co-accused with liberty to file fresh bail application after surrendering at an appropriate stage.

5. Bail order of co-accused, namely, Faim dated 25.2.2020 was also challenged before the Apex Court in which Apex Court vide order dated 15.3.2021 has set aside the order dated 25.2.2020 directing the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. When the trial was not concluded, co-accused Faim approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8405 of 2022, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 on the ground that Apex Court has not granted liberty to High Court to revisit the matter. The order dated 31.01.2023 was challenged before the Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (Criminal) Diary No.19921 of 2023 and the Apex Court vide order dated 18.05.2024 granted liberty to co-accused Faim to file fresh bail application in the event, trial could not be completed within one year. When the trial has not been completed within the time given by the Apex Court co-accused Faim approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22652 of 2024 which was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2024. Against the order dated 11.06.2024, informant has again approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 31648 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2024.

6. So far as Nasir is concerned, after surrendering before the trial Court, he has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25208 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court below. Thereafter, bail application No.1800 of 2024 moved on behalf of applicant was rejected by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C./Court No.2, Kasganj vide order dated 30.11.2024. After that, he has again approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1611 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 7.2.2025 allowed the bail application. Against that, informant has approached the Apex Court upon which Diary No.1275 of 2025 was allotted, but till date no order has been passed. Not only this other co-accused Aarif has also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7156 of 2025.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant firmly submitted that in the FIR, only general role has been assigned to the applicant coupled with this fact that he is having no criminal history. He next submitted that he was surrendered before the trial Court on 24.11.2022 and from that date, he is languishing in jail and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

8. Sri Wagis Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the factual submission so argued by learned counsel for the applicant. Further, they could not distinguish the role of the applicant with the co-accused faim.

9. Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant- Qamruddin involved in Case Crime No. 438 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 34 of IPC, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (2) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (3) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (4) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

11. In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Junaid JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad