High Court · 2025

2. Heard Ms. Nusra Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarthak Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA, for the State.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on 18.5.2023 after considering the fact that however all the witnesses attributed general role to all the accused but informant specifically attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant but she is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 20.9.2022. i.e. for almost two and half year and till date only P.W.1 could be appearred before the court concerned.

5. She further submits, considering the delay in trial a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial which is on record and from its perusal it reflects that till date even cross examination of P.W.-1 could not be concluded and this fact suggest that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. She further submits, as applicant is in jail therefore delay in trial cannot be attributed to him.

7. She further submits, if counsel of other accused are not conducting cross examination of P.W.-1 then applicant cannot be detained in jail.

8. She further submits that however as per informant applicant was the person who caused injury to the deceased but admittedly it is a case of indiscriminate firing and all the witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that fire opened by the applicant hit the deceased.

9. She further submits, bail applications of co-accused Saurabh, Pramod Kumar and Sushil Kumar @ Munna have been allowed by coordinate Benches of this court and considering the statements of eye witnesses excluding the version of the FIR and the statement of informant case of applicant is at par with them.

10. She further submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the fact that fire open by him hit the deceased. They further submitted, however applicant is in jail for almost two and half year but actually counsel for the accused persons are not conducting the cross examination of P.W.1 and therefore, no benefit should be given to the applicant.

12. However both the counsel could not dispute the fact that it was a case of indiscriminate firing and except informant all the other witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused and three co-accused persons have already been released on bail by coordinate Benches of this court and considering the statements of other eye witnesses the case of applicant is at par with them. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant was not having any previous criminal history.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the fact that as per the informant fire open by him hit the deceased but it reflects that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost two and half year and till date not even testimony of p.w.-1 could be concluded however it reflects that accused persons are seeking adjournments for cross examination of p.w.-1 but it could not be reflected from the record that counsel for the applicant also sought adjournment. Be that as it may, as applicant is in jail therefore it cannot be said that he is causing delay in trial. It is the duty of trial court to disallow the unnecessary adjournments.

15. Further, admittedly it is a case of indiscriminate firing and only informant disclosed the fact that fire open by applicant hit the deceased and other eye witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant and three co-accused persons have already been released on bail by coordinate Benches of this court. Considering the statements of the eye witnesses the case of applicant is at par with them.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Diwakar Alias Sani be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Neeraj NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Ms. Nusra Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarthak Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA, for the State.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on 18.5.2023 after considering the fact that however all the witnesses attributed general role to all the accused but informant specifically attributed the role of causing injury to the deceased to the applicant but she is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 20.9.2022. i.e. for almost two and half year and till date only P.W.1 could be appearred before the court concerned.

5. She further submits, considering the delay in trial a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial which is on record and from its perusal it reflects that till date even cross examination of P.W.-1 could not be concluded and this fact suggest that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. She further submits, as applicant is in jail therefore delay in trial cannot be attributed to him.

7. She further submits, if counsel of other accused are not conducting cross examination of P.W.-1 then applicant cannot be detained in jail.

8. She further submits that however as per informant applicant was the person who caused injury to the deceased but admittedly it is a case of indiscriminate firing and all the witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that fire opened by the applicant hit the deceased.

9. She further submits, bail applications of co-accused Saurabh, Pramod Kumar and Sushil Kumar @ Munna have been allowed by coordinate Benches of this court and considering the statements of eye witnesses excluding the version of the FIR and the statement of informant case of applicant is at par with them.

10. She further submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the fact that fire open by him hit the deceased. They further submitted, however applicant is in jail for almost two and half year but actually counsel for the accused persons are not conducting the cross examination of P.W.1 and therefore, no benefit should be given to the applicant.

12. However both the counsel could not dispute the fact that it was a case of indiscriminate firing and except informant all the other witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused and three co-accused persons have already been released on bail by coordinate Benches of this court and considering the statements of other eye witnesses the case of applicant is at par with them. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant was not having any previous criminal history.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the fact that as per the informant fire open by him hit the deceased but it reflects that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost two and half year and till date not even testimony of p.w.-1 could be concluded however it reflects that accused persons are seeking adjournments for cross examination of p.w.-1 but it could not be reflected from the record that counsel for the applicant also sought adjournment. Be that as it may, as applicant is in jail therefore it cannot be said that he is causing delay in trial. It is the duty of trial court to disallow the unnecessary adjournments.

15. Further, admittedly it is a case of indiscriminate firing and only informant disclosed the fact that fire open by applicant hit the deceased and other eye witnesses assigned only general role to all the accused including applicant and three co-accused persons have already been released on bail by coordinate Benches of this court. Considering the statements of the eye witnesses the case of applicant is at par with them.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Diwakar Alias Sani be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Neeraj NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad