Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that

2. Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.109 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assault the informant and his nephew on 02.06.2022 at about 07:30 a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. It is further argued that the FIR is too prompt as it was instituted within one hour fifteen minutes only while the distance from the place of incident to police station is 19 Kms. Learned counsel has further argued that the incident was the result of a free fight between both parties and arose out of sudden provocation. Therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of culpable homicide, rather attracts the application of Exception 2 to Section 300 I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no recovery from the applicant, although, the applicant has been assigned the role of being the main accused person as he is stated to have assaulted the deceased person with iron rod, however, the said allegations are false. There is cross FIR which was instituted on behalf of the applicant by invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. At this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant placed much reliance on the statement of P.W.1 who has categorically stated that dispute arose between the parties over putting tin- shed on the roof which led to the said brawl. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said witness has also stated that he could not see as to which accused had assaulted which injured person and by which weapon. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that all the five injured persons have nominated the applicant to be the person who assaulted the deceased person with iron rod. Five witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. In the case of AIR 1927 Nag 53 – Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that "death or transportation for life" in S.497 CrPC means offences with both as alternatives. Magistrates have discretion to grant bail; delays in trial weighed in favour of release. Bail granted as accused unlikely to abscond.

10. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed:

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

11. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.

12. In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739, the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together".

13. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is cross version of the instant case and there being no possibility of early conclusion of trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Rajesh Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

17. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.109 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assault the informant and his nephew on 02.06.2022 at about 07:30 a.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. It is further argued that the FIR is too prompt as it was instituted within one hour fifteen minutes only while the distance from the place of incident to police station is 19 Kms. Learned counsel has further argued that the incident was the result of a free fight between both parties and arose out of sudden provocation. Therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of culpable homicide, rather attracts the application of Exception 2 to Section 300 I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no recovery from the applicant, although, the applicant has been assigned the role of being the main accused person as he is stated to have assaulted the deceased person with iron rod, however, the said allegations are false. There is cross FIR which was instituted on behalf of the applicant by invoking powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. At this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant placed much reliance on the statement of P.W.1 who has categorically stated that dispute arose between the parties over putting tin- shed on the roof which led to the said brawl. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said witness has also stated that he could not see as to which accused had assaulted which injured person and by which weapon. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that all the five injured persons have nominated the applicant to be the person who assaulted the deceased person with iron rod. Five witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. In the case of AIR 1927 Nag 53 – Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that "death or transportation for life" in S.497 CrPC means offences with both as alternatives. Magistrates have discretion to grant bail; delays in trial weighed in favour of release. Bail granted as accused unlikely to abscond.

10. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed:

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

11. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.

12. In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739, the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together".

13. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is cross version of the instant case and there being no possibility of early conclusion of trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Rajesh Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

17. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad