State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in S.T. No. 624 of 2014, arising out of case crime no. 321 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, police station Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.03.2018.

4. The second bail application of applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2020, which is reproduced herein below:- "Heard leaned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material brought on record. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 321/2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, police station Dadari, District 2 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 Gautam Budh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2018. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR and that during investigation, he was falsely implicated in this case allegedly on the information given by some secret informer and thereafter, applicant and co-accused Deepak were arrested and recovery of country made pistol, was planted upon the applicant. It was submitted that no test identification parade of the applicant was conducted and there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime in question. It was further submitted that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery shown from the applicant. It was submitted that applicant was picked up from his house and was falsely implicated in this case and no motive has been attributed to the applicant. It was also submitted that earlier applicant was also involved in six criminal cases falsely but he is on bail in those cases. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused Vinod alias Kallan, Nitin, Deepak and Narendra Singh have already been granted bail and role assigned to the applicant is similar to them. It was submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 11.06.2014 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that during investigation of case, complicity of applicant in alleged incident was found and that after arrest, one country made pistol and cartridge were recovered from the applicant. It was stated that during investigation, eye witness Dinesh has stated that applicant was also involved in alleged incident and he has made indiscriminate firing. It was further submitted that applicant is a harden criminal and he has criminal history of 40 cases and thus, he cannot be granted bail merely on the ground of parity with the co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, criminal history of the applicant, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any such new substantial ground to entertain this second bail application. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Avnesh alias Anni is rejected."

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is not named in the first information report and his involvement was shown on the basis of some information from informer. No test identification parade of applicant was conducted. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of country made pistol shown from 3 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 the applicant.

6. It is further submitted that in this case applicant is in jail since 11.06.2014 and thus, he has already undergone detention of more than 11 years and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Similarly placed co-accused Nitin, Deepak, Vinod @ Kallan, Narendra Singh, Arun @ Anil @ Arun Kumar Arya and Ankit Gurjar have already been enlarged on bail by different Benches of this Court, copies of which are available on record. Criminal history of about 40 cases has been shown against the applicant and the same has duly been explained. Lastly, it was submitted that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per prosecution version, applicant and co-accused persons have made indiscriminate firing at the brother of informant and committed his murder. It was submitted that there is criminal history of about 40 cases against the applicant.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9. As per prosecution version in the first information report, five unknown persons have committed murder of the deceased by making indiscriminate firing upon him. Applicant was not named in the first information report. Though there is criminal history of about 40 cases against the applicant but long period of detention cannot be ignored. Applicant has already undergone detention of more than 11 years and the case is still at the stage of evidence. It is settled view that right of speedy trial of accused is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life.

10. In view these facts and circumstances, particularly considering period of detention of applicant, it would not be just and proper to reject the bail application of applicant merely 4 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 on the ground of criminal history. Considering entire facts but without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the present third bail application is hereby allowed.

11. Let the applicant Avnesh @ Anni involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.

12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant, in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 Anand (Raj Beer Singh,J.) ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in S.T. No. 624 of 2014, arising out of case crime no. 321 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, police station Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.03.2018.

4. The second bail application of applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2020, which is reproduced herein below:- "Heard leaned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material brought on record. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 321/2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, police station Dadari, District 2 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 Gautam Budh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2018. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is not named in the FIR and that during investigation, he was falsely implicated in this case allegedly on the information given by some secret informer and thereafter, applicant and co-accused Deepak were arrested and recovery of country made pistol, was planted upon the applicant. It was submitted that no test identification parade of the applicant was conducted and there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime in question. It was further submitted that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery shown from the applicant. It was submitted that applicant was picked up from his house and was falsely implicated in this case and no motive has been attributed to the applicant. It was also submitted that earlier applicant was also involved in six criminal cases falsely but he is on bail in those cases. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused Vinod alias Kallan, Nitin, Deepak and Narendra Singh have already been granted bail and role assigned to the applicant is similar to them. It was submitted that applicant is in judicial custody since 11.06.2014 and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that during investigation of case, complicity of applicant in alleged incident was found and that after arrest, one country made pistol and cartridge were recovered from the applicant. It was stated that during investigation, eye witness Dinesh has stated that applicant was also involved in alleged incident and he has made indiscriminate firing. It was further submitted that applicant is a harden criminal and he has criminal history of 40 cases and thus, he cannot be granted bail merely on the ground of parity with the co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, criminal history of the applicant, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any such new substantial ground to entertain this second bail application. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Avnesh alias Anni is rejected."

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is not named in the first information report and his involvement was shown on the basis of some information from informer. No test identification parade of applicant was conducted. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of country made pistol shown from 3 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 the applicant.

6. It is further submitted that in this case applicant is in jail since 11.06.2014 and thus, he has already undergone detention of more than 11 years and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Similarly placed co-accused Nitin, Deepak, Vinod @ Kallan, Narendra Singh, Arun @ Anil @ Arun Kumar Arya and Ankit Gurjar have already been enlarged on bail by different Benches of this Court, copies of which are available on record. Criminal history of about 40 cases has been shown against the applicant and the same has duly been explained. Lastly, it was submitted that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per prosecution version, applicant and co-accused persons have made indiscriminate firing at the brother of informant and committed his murder. It was submitted that there is criminal history of about 40 cases against the applicant.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9. As per prosecution version in the first information report, five unknown persons have committed murder of the deceased by making indiscriminate firing upon him. Applicant was not named in the first information report. Though there is criminal history of about 40 cases against the applicant but long period of detention cannot be ignored. Applicant has already undergone detention of more than 11 years and the case is still at the stage of evidence. It is settled view that right of speedy trial of accused is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life.

10. In view these facts and circumstances, particularly considering period of detention of applicant, it would not be just and proper to reject the bail application of applicant merely 4 BAIL No. 25576 of 2020 on the ground of criminal history. Considering entire facts but without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the present third bail application is hereby allowed.

11. Let the applicant Avnesh @ Anni involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.

12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant, in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 Anand (Raj Beer Singh,J.) ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad