Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10392 of 2024 Omkar State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kawya, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 66 1. List revised. HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Ms. Roshni Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Omkar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Special Case No. 1082/2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 162 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, registered at P.S. Mirehchi, District Etah. 4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 27063 of 2021 (Omkar Vs. State of U.P.). 5. A report of the trial court was called for regarding the status of trial by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025. Office has placed the said report on record. This Court has perused the same. 6. A report dated 18.08.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Etah duly forwarded by the District Judge, Etah on 18.08.2025 goes to show that in the present matter four witnesses have been examined and the 2 BAIL No. 10392 of 2024 cross examination of fifth witness is going on. Further the informant had filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused Govind and Ram Vakeel on 17.01.2025 which was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2025 and the matter thus was at the stage of dealing with under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further the cross examination of PW-5 is going on. The trial has further given an estimation that at least six months time will be taken in the trial. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.09.2020 and the trial would take time to its conclusion. It is further submitted that the admitted fact is that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of co-accused Anil. It is submitted that the applicant is not involved in the matter. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023. In so far as the argument as argued by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same has already been considered while deciding the first bail application. It is submitted that the trial is under progress in which four witnesses have been examined and the testimony of fifth witness is being recorded. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved which has also been decided. It is submitted that there is no fresh and new ground and thus the present second bail application be rejected. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial in the present matter is going on in which four witnesses have been examined and the fifth witness is being examined therein. In between an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant for summoning two accused which was subsequently rejected by the trial court. The trial thus is going on and it cannot be said that the trial is on hold. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023. The same reads as under: "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3 BAIL No. 10392 of 2024 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Omkar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.162 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, P.S. Mirahchi, District Etah. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 4.9.2020 under Section 364 IPC by Shabbir against the applicant and Anil alleging therein that he had purchased a three wheeler from the village which was being driven by Salman Malik, his son. On 3.9.2020 at about 6 a.m., his son went to the whole-sale market with the said vehicle. He received a phone call at about 4.30 p.m. by someone that his tempo has met with an accident on Sirsa Tippu Kasganj Road on which he reached there and found the vehicle to have met with an accident. The person driving it was Anil who told him that his associate Omkar has run away. Anil has received injury. On asking about Salman Malik, he said that he has been injured and has been thrown in a canal and proper information would be given by Omkar. Anil was taken to hospital. He was then arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is argued that the applicant was then arrested on the next day on the information of police informer after which his confessional statement was recorded wherein he has confessed assaulting the deceased with co-accused Anil with hammer and spade. It is argued that he told police that the dead-body of the deceased has been buried in the house of Anil which can be recovered. He was then taken to the said place from where he got the said dead-body recovered. It is argued that there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is argued that the circumstantial evidence does not form a complete chain. The investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted in the matter as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence. It is argued that an iron hammer and a spade which have been recovered, do not corroborate with the injury received by the injured inasmuch as the deceased was found having a single lacerated wound on his body which was the cause of death. The said weapon of assault has not been sent to Forensic Science Lab for examination, as such there is no corroboration of use of the same. It is argued that the applicant was not present at the place where the first informant and other persons reached and found the tempo to have met with an accident where co-accused Anil was present who had received injuries. The naming of the applicant is on the basis of disclosure of his name to the informant by co-accused Anil. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 30 of the affidavit and is in jail since 4.9.2020. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is involved in the matter as his name was disclosed by co-accused Anil at the first point of time who was then arrested and on his pointing out, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the enclosure of the house of co-accused Anil. The same is an incriminating fact. The implication of the applicant is there and there is evidence against him. 4 BAIL No. 10392 of 2024 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The dead-body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from the enclosure of the house of co-accused Anil. 8. 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. 9. However, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial of the case before the court concerned within two weeks from today, which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same within two weeks thereafter." 10. There is no fresh and new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant. No ground for bail is made out, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail. 11. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Decision
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. October 13, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad