State of U.P v. Party

result of ante mortem fire arm injuries. The statement of the informant is in-verbatim of the allegations made in the FIR.

11. The statements of Raju Balmiki and Rajdeep do not come within the purview of eye witness, rather they are hearsay witnesses only. Even the statement of Sandeep does not carry any force and his statement has been recorded just to cover up the motive behind the said offence.

12. It is a blind murder and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case out of vengeance. The only star witness is Sudhanshu and the truth is that it is Sudhanshu, who had committed the said offence and has 3 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 falsely foisted the case on applicant and two other co-accused persons just to cover up his misdeeds.

13. Even the presence of Sudhanshu stands falsified from the fact that he was not present at the time of inquest proceedings as he did not accompany the deceased and he did not put his signature on the inquest report. As per his version, he ran away from the place of occurrence as he saw the accused persons armed with country made pistol and he only heard the sound of gun shot. Thus, the fact that applicant has committed crime is based on his hearsay evidence, which does not carry any weight in the eyes of law.

14. The said witness Sudhanshu has even not described the weapons being carried by the accused persons including the applicant. Even the weapon etc. recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons and the applicant have not been sent to ballistic expert for examination. There is no recovery from the applicant. The applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of him being the person having long criminal history, to show some good work by the police.

15. It is next stated that first bail application of the co-accused Rahul Yadav was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

04.01.2024 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.14952 of 2022 but the second bail application of the same co-accused Rahul Yadav was allowed by the same Bench vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11259 of 2025. It is further stated that bail application of co-accused Kapil was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.43916 of 2022, as such the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Rahul Yadav.

16. The criminal history of 13 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2020, as such period of incarceration is more than four years and ten months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as only one witness has been examined to date. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The 4 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :-

17. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the applicant is the main accused in the said offence and he has a long criminal antecedents of 13 cases. However, the criminal history explained by the applicant has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. It is further argued that even otherwise the statement of Sudhanshu stands covered by Section 4 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION :-

18. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report dated 08.08.2025 has been submitted by the concerned trial court. As per the said report, one witness has been examined to date.

19. 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.

20. In the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, it has been held as follows:- "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."

21. 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: 5 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 "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 a punishment, requirements as to bail are merely to 6 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”

22. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (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; and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.

23. 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”.

24. 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.

25. The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty.

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant i.e. about four years and ten months and also taking into account the 7 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 status of trial as only one witness has been examined to date, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

27. Let the applicant- Ajeet, 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 the 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.

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

29. 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. August 27, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

result of ante mortem fire arm injuries. The statement of the informant is in-verbatim of the allegations made in the FIR.

11. The statements of Raju Balmiki and Rajdeep do not come within the purview of eye witness, rather they are hearsay witnesses only. Even the statement of Sandeep does not carry any force and his statement has been recorded just to cover up the motive behind the said offence.

12. It is a blind murder and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case out of vengeance. The only star witness is Sudhanshu and the truth is that it is Sudhanshu, who had committed the said offence and has 3 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 falsely foisted the case on applicant and two other co-accused persons just to cover up his misdeeds.

13. Even the presence of Sudhanshu stands falsified from the fact that he was not present at the time of inquest proceedings as he did not accompany the deceased and he did not put his signature on the inquest report. As per his version, he ran away from the place of occurrence as he saw the accused persons armed with country made pistol and he only heard the sound of gun shot. Thus, the fact that applicant has committed crime is based on his hearsay evidence, which does not carry any weight in the eyes of law.

14. The said witness Sudhanshu has even not described the weapons being carried by the accused persons including the applicant. Even the weapon etc. recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons and the applicant have not been sent to ballistic expert for examination. There is no recovery from the applicant. The applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of him being the person having long criminal history, to show some good work by the police.

15. It is next stated that first bail application of the co-accused Rahul Yadav was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

04.01.2024 in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.14952 of 2022 but the second bail application of the same co-accused Rahul Yadav was allowed by the same Bench vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11259 of 2025. It is further stated that bail application of co-accused Kapil was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.43916 of 2022, as such the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Rahul Yadav.

16. The criminal history of 13 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2020, as such period of incarceration is more than four years and ten months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as only one witness has been examined to date. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The 4 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :-

17. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the applicant is the main accused in the said offence and he has a long criminal antecedents of 13 cases. However, the criminal history explained by the applicant has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. It is further argued that even otherwise the statement of Sudhanshu stands covered by Section 4 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION :-

18. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report dated 08.08.2025 has been submitted by the concerned trial court. As per the said report, one witness has been examined to date.

19. 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.

20. In the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, it has been held as follows:- "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."

21. 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: 5 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 "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 a punishment, requirements as to bail are merely to 6 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”

22. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (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; and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.

23. 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”.

24. 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.

25. The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty.

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant i.e. about four years and ten months and also taking into account the 7 BAIL No. 45457 of 2023 status of trial as only one witness has been examined to date, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

27. Let the applicant- Ajeet, 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 the 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.

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

29. 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. August 27, 2025 Sumit S (Krishan Pahal,J.) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad