Aadya Prasad Tewari v. State of U.P.) as well as FIR No. RC

Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, both assisted by Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, Sri Deepak Dubey and Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned counsels for the victim who have put in appearance in opposition to the Bail Plea and perused the records.

2. The instant Bail Application on behalf of the applicant Aadya Prasad Tewari has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 2212 of 2021 (Aadya Prasad Tewari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as FIR No. RC-8(s)/2021/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi dated 23.9.2021 lodged by the CBI, Special Crime-III, New Delhi arising out of Case Crime No. 0322 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj,during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The Bail Application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 21.01.2022 and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 22.09.2021.

3. Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contends that the applicant is facing the trial for the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. 2 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 and 120-B I.P.C. and is confined in jail since 22.9.2021. The maximum punishment for the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable for fine. Sri Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of the court to the provisions contained in Section 479 BNSS which provides for the maximum period for which under trial prisoner can be detained. He submits that the applicant is a first time offender and has never been convicted of any offence in the past. The applicant has undergone detention for a period extending up to more than one third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence alleged and as such is entitled to be released on Bond by the Court. It is argued that the applicant satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 479 B.N.S.S. and is entitled to be released. Reliance has been placed upon a communication dated 11.7.2025 which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit-III addressed by the Senior Jail Superintendent, District Jail Prayagraj where the applicant is incarcerated, to the court of the learned ADJ, Court No. 9, Prayagraj to submit that undisputedly the applicant satisfies the conditions stipulated under Section 479 B.N.S.S. and has remained in custody for 1/3rd of the maximum imprisonment and that there is no other case against the applicant. The bail plea of the applicant is being pressed on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 23.8.2024 of the Apex Court in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons particularly para 4 & 5 quoted hereunder for implementation of Section 479 BNSS "4. In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 470 of the BNSS by calling upon superintendents of Jails across t he country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one- third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition.

5. The aforesaid steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Reports shall be submitted by the Superintendent Jails to their respective Heads of the Department within the same time line for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by each State Government/Union Territory through their respective Chief Secretaries. The affidavits shall furnish the details of the number of undertrials who would be entitled to extension of the benefit of Section 479 of the BNSS, the number of applications moved before the concerned Courts for their release and the number of undertrials actually released by the date of filing of the affidavits." 3 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022

4. Per contra Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special Public Prosecutor CBI as also Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel along with these respective assisting Counsels vehemently oppose the Bail plea by submitting that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bond by the court under Section 479 B.N.S.S. on the grounds urged in as much as the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant ignores the explanation clause to the said section which provides that the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused is to be excluded. It is further submitted that the applicant though confined in jail is not cooperating in the trial and is delaying the same purposely to obtain benefit of the provisions of the Section 479 of B.N.S.S. Learned counsels opposing the Bail plea have invited the attention of the Court to the proceedings of the trial so far and have also taken the Court to the contents of the various orders passed to demonstrate that delay is being occasioned on account of the undertrials including the applicant herein. They further submitted that the records of the case was received after committal for framing of the charges against the applicant vide order dated 04.12.2021. The charge could not be framed on account of delaying tactics of the accused occasioned by absence of the counsels for the applicant, moving of discharge application, filing applications raising jurisdictional issues, filing response, change of Counsels, seeking adjournments on one pretext or the others. The charges were ultimately framed vide order dated 31.3.2023. Thereafter the proceedings of the trial were sought to be stalled by resorting to frivolous means. It has been stated that the trial today is at a stage where the P.W.3 is being cross examined by the applicant. It is also submitted that the Apex Court in its subsequent order dated 19.11.2024 in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has observed that the identification of the deserving undertrials is required to be made by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district with appropriate coordination with Jail Superintendent of the jail and Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The Communication relied upon by the applicant dated 11.7.2025 is of no assistance in absence of any report regarding the entitlement of the applicant to the beneficial provision under Section 479 of B.N.S.S. It is accordingly prayed that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have perused the 4 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 records.

6. Undisputedly the bail plea is being pressed on the ground of Section 479 B.N.S.S. Section 479 B.N.S.S., 2023 provides for the release of undertrial prisoners suffering prolonged incarceration. Section 479 B.N.S.S. is being quoted hereunder:- "479 Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained.- (1)Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3)The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub- section (1) for the release of such person on bail."

7. A perusal of the provisions of Section 479 B.N.S.S. reveals that the benefit contemplated therein is not available to such undertrials charged with heinous offence punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment. The 1st proviso to Section 479 B.N.S.S. specifies that for the first time offenders, 5 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 who have not been convicted of any offence in the past shall be released on bond by the court if the person has undergone detention for a period up to 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment, specified for such offence under the law. The explanation to the said section provides that for computing the period of detention under the Section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceedings caused by the accused is to be excluded.

8. Section 479 B.N.S.S. came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (Writ Petition (s) Civil No. 406 of 2013). The Apex Court observed that the beneficial provisions of Section 379 B.N.S.S. shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them prior to the date when the new legislation came into effect. Their Lordships of the Apex Court also observed that the identification of the deserving undertrials was required to be made by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district, with appropriate Coordination with the Jail Superintendent of all the jails in the country. Directions were issued to the Member Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authority to mobilize their panel Advocates/ Para legal volunteers so that relevant information on the incarcerated undertrials were updated. The need for a pro-active effort for the cause of liberty of the individual prisoners was emphasized.

9. This Court from the perusal of the records finds that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under the directions and suggestions of the Supreme Court of India has drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Under Trial Review Committee (UTRCS). Under the SOP drafted and approved a Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) is to be chaired by the District and Sessions Judge and shall consist of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Secretary DLSA and Jail Superintendent as its Members. The SOP provides an elaborate procedure for identifying the Under Trial Prisoners (UTP) lodged in the jail at the level of the Jail Superintendent. The information/Data is to be shared with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. The office of the Secretary DLSA with the aid of empaneled Panel Lawyers, Retired Judicial Officers and law students trained as PLVs if required and available shall draw list of UTPs/ convicts eligible for consideration by the UTRC. The District and Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC meeting as soon as the intimation is received from 6 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 the Secretary of DLSA about the completion of the list. The UTRC shall consider the cases shortlisted by the Secretary DLSA and make recommendations for the release / appropriate action.

10. This Court from the perusal of the records also finds that the standard operating procedure laid down and approved for extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 479 BNSS to the applicant has yet not been undertaken by the UTRC. In the opinion of the Court in the absence of such an exercise and recommendation by the UTRC the Bail Application of the Applicant cannot be considered at this stage. The communication of the Jail Superintendent dated 11.07.2015 referred to hereinbefore on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no avail to the applicant.

11. Accordingly the bail application is rejected at this stage.

12. However, this Court considering the mandate contained in the provisions of Section 479 BNSS - directions of the Apex Court in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Standard Operating Procedure prescribed and approved for Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) is of the opinion that ends of justice shall stand subserved if appropriate directions are issued to the Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) constituted under the Chairmanship of the District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, with the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Secretary DLSA and Jail Superintendent as its Members to submit a report recommending the applicant for release from jail or otherwise.

13. Accordingly the UTRC shall undertake the exercise and submit a report recommending the applicant to be released under Section 479 BNSS or otherwise within 2 months from the date of service of this order. Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to ensure communication of this order to the UTRC and its Members forthwith. October 14, 2025 Gss (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, both assisted by Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, Sri Deepak Dubey and Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned counsels for the victim who have put in appearance in opposition to the Bail Plea and perused the records.

2. The instant Bail Application on behalf of the applicant Aadya Prasad Tewari has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 2212 of 2021 (Aadya Prasad Tewari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as FIR No. RC-8(s)/2021/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi dated 23.9.2021 lodged by the CBI, Special Crime-III, New Delhi arising out of Case Crime No. 0322 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj,during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The Bail Application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 21.01.2022 and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 22.09.2021.

3. Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contends that the applicant is facing the trial for the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. 2 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 and 120-B I.P.C. and is confined in jail since 22.9.2021. The maximum punishment for the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable for fine. Sri Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of the court to the provisions contained in Section 479 BNSS which provides for the maximum period for which under trial prisoner can be detained. He submits that the applicant is a first time offender and has never been convicted of any offence in the past. The applicant has undergone detention for a period extending up to more than one third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence alleged and as such is entitled to be released on Bond by the Court. It is argued that the applicant satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 479 B.N.S.S. and is entitled to be released. Reliance has been placed upon a communication dated 11.7.2025 which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit-III addressed by the Senior Jail Superintendent, District Jail Prayagraj where the applicant is incarcerated, to the court of the learned ADJ, Court No. 9, Prayagraj to submit that undisputedly the applicant satisfies the conditions stipulated under Section 479 B.N.S.S. and has remained in custody for 1/3rd of the maximum imprisonment and that there is no other case against the applicant. The bail plea of the applicant is being pressed on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 23.8.2024 of the Apex Court in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons particularly para 4 & 5 quoted hereunder for implementation of Section 479 BNSS "4. In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct immediate implementation of Section 470 of the BNSS by calling upon superintendents of Jails across t he country wherever accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of one-half/one- third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail. This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition.

5. The aforesaid steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. Reports shall be submitted by the Superintendent Jails to their respective Heads of the Department within the same time line for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by each State Government/Union Territory through their respective Chief Secretaries. The affidavits shall furnish the details of the number of undertrials who would be entitled to extension of the benefit of Section 479 of the BNSS, the number of applications moved before the concerned Courts for their release and the number of undertrials actually released by the date of filing of the affidavits." 3 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022

4. Per contra Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned Special Public Prosecutor CBI as also Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel along with these respective assisting Counsels vehemently oppose the Bail plea by submitting that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bond by the court under Section 479 B.N.S.S. on the grounds urged in as much as the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant ignores the explanation clause to the said section which provides that the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused is to be excluded. It is further submitted that the applicant though confined in jail is not cooperating in the trial and is delaying the same purposely to obtain benefit of the provisions of the Section 479 of B.N.S.S. Learned counsels opposing the Bail plea have invited the attention of the Court to the proceedings of the trial so far and have also taken the Court to the contents of the various orders passed to demonstrate that delay is being occasioned on account of the undertrials including the applicant herein. They further submitted that the records of the case was received after committal for framing of the charges against the applicant vide order dated 04.12.2021. The charge could not be framed on account of delaying tactics of the accused occasioned by absence of the counsels for the applicant, moving of discharge application, filing applications raising jurisdictional issues, filing response, change of Counsels, seeking adjournments on one pretext or the others. The charges were ultimately framed vide order dated 31.3.2023. Thereafter the proceedings of the trial were sought to be stalled by resorting to frivolous means. It has been stated that the trial today is at a stage where the P.W.3 is being cross examined by the applicant. It is also submitted that the Apex Court in its subsequent order dated 19.11.2024 in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has observed that the identification of the deserving undertrials is required to be made by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district with appropriate coordination with Jail Superintendent of the jail and Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority. The Communication relied upon by the applicant dated 11.7.2025 is of no assistance in absence of any report regarding the entitlement of the applicant to the beneficial provision under Section 479 of B.N.S.S. It is accordingly prayed that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have perused the 4 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 records.

6. Undisputedly the bail plea is being pressed on the ground of Section 479 B.N.S.S. Section 479 B.N.S.S., 2023 provides for the release of undertrial prisoners suffering prolonged incarceration. Section 479 B.N.S.S. is being quoted hereunder:- "479 Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained.- (1)Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3)The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub- section (1) for the release of such person on bail."

7. A perusal of the provisions of Section 479 B.N.S.S. reveals that the benefit contemplated therein is not available to such undertrials charged with heinous offence punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment. The 1st proviso to Section 479 B.N.S.S. specifies that for the first time offenders, 5 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 who have not been convicted of any offence in the past shall be released on bond by the court if the person has undergone detention for a period up to 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment, specified for such offence under the law. The explanation to the said section provides that for computing the period of detention under the Section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceedings caused by the accused is to be excluded.

8. Section 479 B.N.S.S. came to be interpreted by the Apex Court in Re- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (Writ Petition (s) Civil No. 406 of 2013). The Apex Court observed that the beneficial provisions of Section 379 B.N.S.S. shall apply to all undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered against them prior to the date when the new legislation came into effect. Their Lordships of the Apex Court also observed that the identification of the deserving undertrials was required to be made by the Undertrial Review Committee (UTRC) present in each district, with appropriate Coordination with the Jail Superintendent of all the jails in the country. Directions were issued to the Member Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authority to mobilize their panel Advocates/ Para legal volunteers so that relevant information on the incarcerated undertrials were updated. The need for a pro-active effort for the cause of liberty of the individual prisoners was emphasized.

9. This Court from the perusal of the records finds that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under the directions and suggestions of the Supreme Court of India has drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Under Trial Review Committee (UTRCS). Under the SOP drafted and approved a Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) is to be chaired by the District and Sessions Judge and shall consist of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Secretary DLSA and Jail Superintendent as its Members. The SOP provides an elaborate procedure for identifying the Under Trial Prisoners (UTP) lodged in the jail at the level of the Jail Superintendent. The information/Data is to be shared with the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. The office of the Secretary DLSA with the aid of empaneled Panel Lawyers, Retired Judicial Officers and law students trained as PLVs if required and available shall draw list of UTPs/ convicts eligible for consideration by the UTRC. The District and Sessions Judge shall convene the UTRC meeting as soon as the intimation is received from 6 BAIL No. 28501 of 2022 the Secretary of DLSA about the completion of the list. The UTRC shall consider the cases shortlisted by the Secretary DLSA and make recommendations for the release / appropriate action.

10. This Court from the perusal of the records also finds that the standard operating procedure laid down and approved for extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 479 BNSS to the applicant has yet not been undertaken by the UTRC. In the opinion of the Court in the absence of such an exercise and recommendation by the UTRC the Bail Application of the Applicant cannot be considered at this stage. The communication of the Jail Superintendent dated 11.07.2015 referred to hereinbefore on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no avail to the applicant.

11. Accordingly the bail application is rejected at this stage.

12. However, this Court considering the mandate contained in the provisions of Section 479 BNSS - directions of the Apex Court in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Standard Operating Procedure prescribed and approved for Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) is of the opinion that ends of justice shall stand subserved if appropriate directions are issued to the Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) constituted under the Chairmanship of the District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, with the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Secretary DLSA and Jail Superintendent as its Members to submit a report recommending the applicant for release from jail or otherwise.

13. Accordingly the UTRC shall undertake the exercise and submit a report recommending the applicant to be released under Section 479 BNSS or otherwise within 2 months from the date of service of this order. Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to ensure communication of this order to the UTRC and its Members forthwith. October 14, 2025 Gss (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad