Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12136 of 2025 Mata Prasad Alias Gheesu State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Sandeep Pandey G.A. Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. This is the second bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2023 at Police Station-Rajgarh, District-Mirzapur under Section 304 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 26.09.2024.
Legal Reasoning
The following arguments made by Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 2. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence. 3. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings. 4. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine nine witnesses. Seven witnesses have already been examined. Material witnesses have 2 BAIL No. 12136 of 2025 deposed before the trial court. 5. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deposition of PW-2 that the body of the deceased was found in the applicant’s house is contested by the applicant. The applicant proposes to tender defence evidence and establish that the house/hut from where the body of the deceased was recovered did not belong to him and he has no connection with the same. 7. The police investigation was vitiated by pro prosecution bias. Despite the availability of exculpatory evidence the police failed to pursue the line of investigation in that direction and did not collect the evidence which was consistent with the innocence of the applicant. In fact the police conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet in a mechanical manner neglecting the evidence which proves the innocence of the applicant only to burnish their professional credentials. 8. The applicant also seeks to establish his plea of his alibi and other relevant aspects during his defence. in 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out the statements of prosecution material contradictions witnesses and identified the fault lines which discredit the prosecution case completely. However this Court does not intend to go into the appraisal of evidence as it may influence the trial. 10. The stage will shortly be set for 313 CrPC proceedings and thereafter for introduction of defence evidence. In case the applicant is not enlarged on interim bail in the facts of this case the proceedings under Section 313 CrPC and Section 233 CrPC will become an exercise in formality since the applicant will not be able to produce best evidence in his defence. Moreover, the applicant is a poor person and has to collect the resources for 3 BAIL No. 12136 of 2025 engaging a defence counsel of his choice, and also to gather evidence to establish his innocence before the trial court. 11. Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence. 12. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while enlarging an accused on bail examined the right of accused for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so all relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." 13. Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 4 BAIL No. 12136 of 2025 14. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. 15. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In this wake and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the applicant- Mata Prasad Alias Gheesu be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. In case the applicant or any other accused who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. 5 BAIL No. 12136 of 2025 The learned trial court shall also ensure that the proceedings are expedited without prejudicing the defence of the applicant. The judgment is reserved on the issue of grant of bail for preparation of defence/collection of defence evidence by the accused. Connect with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13193 of 2025 (Asha Vs State of U.P.). September 24, 2025 Pravin (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad