In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in S.T. No. 1435 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Mansoorpur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. The first bail application was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.7.2019 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 42539 of 2017 and the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gayyoor Ali, learned counsel for applicant, Sri N.S.Chahar, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It is contended that other co-accused Pravindra and Maan Singh have been granted bail vide this Court's order dated 07.07.2017 and 04.9.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23655 of 2017 and 29966 of 2017 respectively. However, aforesaid orders shows that this Court considered submission that main role was assigned to Saddam, i.e. applicant in the present bail application. During investigation police has been informed by eye witness Shahnawaz that it is Saddam who has committed offence and the same has been corroborated by other witnesses also. Hence, case of applicant is different than other co-accused since he is the main person, who has fired deceased.

4. Looking to entire facts and circumstances, at this stage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

5. Application is accordingly rejected."

5. On 03.07.2025, this Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, the status report has been received from the learned Trial Court.

6. As per the status report dated 25.07.2025, only two witnesses have been examined to date; one witness of fact i.e. P.W. - 1, Vivek Kumar s/o Raj Kumar, whose examination was completed on 03.12.2021 and another witness Retd. H.M. Harbeer Singh has been examined on 17.07.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that only one witness of fact has been examined to date and the name of the said witness is Vivek Kumar. The applicant was assigned the role of firing at the deceased person at the statement of one Shahnawaj but his statement has yet not been recorded. It is further argued that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only two witnesses have been examined to date, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is in jail since 21.02.2017, as such, the period of incarceration is more than 08 years and 05 months. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated.

9. Learned counsel has also stated that criminal history of 12 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in para-40 of the affidavit and in the supplementary affidavit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

12. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.

13. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also considering the fact that the trial has proceeded at a snail's pace as only two witnesses have been examined to date coupled by the fact that the eye-witness, Shahnawaj, who has levelled specific allegation against the applicant, has yet not been examined, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Saddam, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

18. 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in S.T. No. 1435 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Mansoorpur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. The first bail application was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.7.2019 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 42539 of 2017 and the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gayyoor Ali, learned counsel for applicant, Sri N.S.Chahar, learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.

3. It is contended that other co-accused Pravindra and Maan Singh have been granted bail vide this Court's order dated 07.07.2017 and 04.9.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23655 of 2017 and 29966 of 2017 respectively. However, aforesaid orders shows that this Court considered submission that main role was assigned to Saddam, i.e. applicant in the present bail application. During investigation police has been informed by eye witness Shahnawaz that it is Saddam who has committed offence and the same has been corroborated by other witnesses also. Hence, case of applicant is different than other co-accused since he is the main person, who has fired deceased.

4. Looking to entire facts and circumstances, at this stage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.

5. Application is accordingly rejected."

5. On 03.07.2025, this Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, the status report has been received from the learned Trial Court.

6. As per the status report dated 25.07.2025, only two witnesses have been examined to date; one witness of fact i.e. P.W. - 1, Vivek Kumar s/o Raj Kumar, whose examination was completed on 03.12.2021 and another witness Retd. H.M. Harbeer Singh has been examined on 17.07.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that only one witness of fact has been examined to date and the name of the said witness is Vivek Kumar. The applicant was assigned the role of firing at the deceased person at the statement of one Shahnawaj but his statement has yet not been recorded. It is further argued that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only two witnesses have been examined to date, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is in jail since 21.02.2017, as such, the period of incarceration is more than 08 years and 05 months. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated.

9. Learned counsel has also stated that criminal history of 12 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in para-40 of the affidavit and in the supplementary affidavit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

11. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

12. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.

13. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also considering the fact that the trial has proceeded at a snail's pace as only two witnesses have been examined to date coupled by the fact that the eye-witness, Shahnawaj, who has levelled specific allegation against the applicant, has yet not been examined, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Saddam, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

18. 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad