High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 22.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55281 of 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the charge in the matter was framed on 18.3.2021 and till date examination of chief of only one witness has been done. It is submitted that as per chargesheet there are 45 witnesses in the present matter and as such the trial would take time to complete. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail without any fault of his. Further while placing reliance on the rejoinder affidavit dated 24.2.2025 and the ordersheet annexed with it learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial is not progressing at all and as such the applicant be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the applicant is having a criminal history of total eight cases out of which three cases are of murder and two cases are of attempt to murder and in this regard paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit and annexure CA-4 to the same has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that looking to the criminal history of the applicant and the fact that the applicant has been involved in serious cases even earlier as such the present bail application be dismissed.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 22.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55281 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rahul seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.706 of 2020, under Section 302, 394, 201 and 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that FIR has been lodged against unknown person alleging therein that Vikram, the son of the first informant went missing on 9.11.2020 from the house. He was searched a lot. On 11.11.2020, a missing report was also lodged and subsequently on 15.11.2020, his dead-body was found lying in the bank of river Yamuna at Bengali Ghat. The implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sachin, Dharmendra and Shivam given to the police in which they have stated that the applicant was also with them in committing the incident but later on he ran away, the same is not credible evidence. The police arrested the applicant on 24.11.2020 on the information of police informer and there was a case under Section 307 IPC being firing on the police party which is a case of no injury in which the applicant was arrested and from his possession, three live cartridges of 315 bore and Rs.2180/- were recovered which have been connected being the money of the present case. While referring para 12 of the affidavit, the applicant is reported to be involved in six other cases being Case Crime No.358 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, Case Crime No.59 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.60 of 2020, under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, Case Crime No.721 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.722 of 2020, under Section 411, 314, 420 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.360 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura. It is argued that out of the aforesaid six cases, the applicant has been granted bail in Case Crime Nos.721 of 2020, 722 of 2020 and 360 of 2020 by the court below, copies of the said orders are annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and in Case Crime No.59 of 2020 and 358 of 2020, the applicant has been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court, copies of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. In the case under the Gangsters Act, the bail of the applicant is under consideration. It is further argued that co-accused Shivam has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 4.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36812 of 2021, copy of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2020. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has two other cases under Section 302 IPC along with other Sections, one case is under the Gangsters Act and two cases are under Section 307 IPC and one case under Section 411, 414, 420 IPC and this is a third case under Section 302 IPC. The nature of two other cases under Section 302 IPC are identical and are of the same Section as that of the present case, as such bail of the applicant be rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that this is the third case of the same nature in which the applicant is involved which relates to offence under Section 302 IPC and other Sections. There is repetition of the cases of same nature in which applicant is involved. From the motorcycle which was driven by the applicant, there is recovery of Adhar Card, T-Shirt and birth certificate of the deceased. 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."

6. The trial in the matter has started, in which the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded. The applicant is involved in eight other cases, in which three cases are of Section 302 I.P.C. and as such no good ground is made out for bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

8. However, since the trial is of the year 2021 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial 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. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Faridul (Samit Gopal, J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 22.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55281 of 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the charge in the matter was framed on 18.3.2021 and till date examination of chief of only one witness has been done. It is submitted that as per chargesheet there are 45 witnesses in the present matter and as such the trial would take time to complete. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail without any fault of his. Further while placing reliance on the rejoinder affidavit dated 24.2.2025 and the ordersheet annexed with it learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial is not progressing at all and as such the applicant be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the applicant is having a criminal history of total eight cases out of which three cases are of murder and two cases are of attempt to murder and in this regard paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit and annexure CA-4 to the same has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that looking to the criminal history of the applicant and the fact that the applicant has been involved in serious cases even earlier as such the present bail application be dismissed.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 22.3.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55281 of 2021. The said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Rahul seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.706 of 2020, under Section 302, 394, 201 and 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that FIR has been lodged against unknown person alleging therein that Vikram, the son of the first informant went missing on 9.11.2020 from the house. He was searched a lot. On 11.11.2020, a missing report was also lodged and subsequently on 15.11.2020, his dead-body was found lying in the bank of river Yamuna at Bengali Ghat. The implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sachin, Dharmendra and Shivam given to the police in which they have stated that the applicant was also with them in committing the incident but later on he ran away, the same is not credible evidence. The police arrested the applicant on 24.11.2020 on the information of police informer and there was a case under Section 307 IPC being firing on the police party which is a case of no injury in which the applicant was arrested and from his possession, three live cartridges of 315 bore and Rs.2180/- were recovered which have been connected being the money of the present case. While referring para 12 of the affidavit, the applicant is reported to be involved in six other cases being Case Crime No.358 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, Case Crime No.59 of 2020, under Section 302, 201, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.60 of 2020, under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, Case Crime No.721 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.722 of 2020, under Section 411, 314, 420 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, Case Crime No.360 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura. It is argued that out of the aforesaid six cases, the applicant has been granted bail in Case Crime Nos.721 of 2020, 722 of 2020 and 360 of 2020 by the court below, copies of the said orders are annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and in Case Crime No.59 of 2020 and 358 of 2020, the applicant has been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court, copies of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. In the case under the Gangsters Act, the bail of the applicant is under consideration. It is further argued that co-accused Shivam has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 4.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36812 of 2021, copy of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2020. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has two other cases under Section 302 IPC along with other Sections, one case is under the Gangsters Act and two cases are under Section 307 IPC and one case under Section 411, 414, 420 IPC and this is a third case under Section 302 IPC. The nature of two other cases under Section 302 IPC are identical and are of the same Section as that of the present case, as such bail of the applicant be rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that this is the third case of the same nature in which the applicant is involved which relates to offence under Section 302 IPC and other Sections. There is repetition of the cases of same nature in which applicant is involved. From the motorcycle which was driven by the applicant, there is recovery of Adhar Card, T-Shirt and birth certificate of the deceased. 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."

6. The trial in the matter has started, in which the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded. The applicant is involved in eight other cases, in which three cases are of Section 302 I.P.C. and as such no good ground is made out for bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

8. However, since the trial is of the year 2021 and the applicant is the accused, it is provided that the applicant may file an application for expeditious disposal of the trial 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. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Faridul (Samit Gopal, J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad