State of U.P. vs Party(s)

S.T. No.235 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

3. The second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

17.10.2024, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 478 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 on merits.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was stated that as per prosecution version, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to the applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal but the said version is wholly false. It was pointed out that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, the FSL report has been received, wherein it has been opined that the cartridges found on the spot were not fired from the alleged pistols shown recovered from applicant and co-accused. Further, during trial concerned doctor has stated that all the firearm injuries have been caused by the weapon of same bore. Referring to these facts, it was stated 2 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 that the prosecution version regarding involvement of applicant in the incident becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that during trial, all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. Further, in the interest of justice, the applicant deserves to be released on bail for preparation of his defence and in this connection learned counsel has referred case of Prabhat Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023), decided on 19.09.2023. Applicant has no criminal history. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2021 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per prosecution version, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to the applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

06.02.2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of one year. It was submitted that period of one year has not passed since then and this second bail application has been moved. It was further submitted that no substantial new ground is made out in this second bail application.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts, particularly the fact that while rejecting first bail application of the applicant, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of one year and that period has not yet been passed, at this stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Shivank @ Shivanshu Mudgal is rejected."

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal. After rejection of second bail application of applicant, similarly placed co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48000 of 2023. Case of applicant is also on similar footing.

5. It is further submitted that after rejection of second bail application, applicant has filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial court to complete the trial within the period prescribed by this Court while deciding the second bail application or to complete the trial 3 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 within extended period of three months, but trial has not been concluded so far, whereas a period of about one year has passed since then. The applicant has no criminal history. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant may be granted bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first and second bail of applicant have already been rejected. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded. It was submitted that trial is being delayed by the accused persons. However, it could not be disputed that similar placed co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the role of the applicant is similar to him.

7. It is apparent from record that the trial court has failed to conclude the trial within the period prescribed by this Court as well within the period prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicant has no criminal history. Similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail. Applicant is in jail since 06.11.2021.

8. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant - Shivank @ Shivanshu Mudgal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. 4 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 13, 2025 A.N. Mishra (Raj Beer Singh,J.) AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

S.T. No.235 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

3. The second bail of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

17.10.2024, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 478 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 on merits.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was stated that as per prosecution version, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to the applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal but the said version is wholly false. It was pointed out that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, the FSL report has been received, wherein it has been opined that the cartridges found on the spot were not fired from the alleged pistols shown recovered from applicant and co-accused. Further, during trial concerned doctor has stated that all the firearm injuries have been caused by the weapon of same bore. Referring to these facts, it was stated 2 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 that the prosecution version regarding involvement of applicant in the incident becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that during trial, all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. Further, in the interest of justice, the applicant deserves to be released on bail for preparation of his defence and in this connection learned counsel has referred case of Prabhat Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023), decided on 19.09.2023. Applicant has no criminal history. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2021 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per prosecution version, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to the applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated

06.02.2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of one year. It was submitted that period of one year has not passed since then and this second bail application has been moved. It was further submitted that no substantial new ground is made out in this second bail application.

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts, particularly the fact that while rejecting first bail application of the applicant, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of one year and that period has not yet been passed, at this stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Shivank @ Shivanshu Mudgal is rejected."

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, role of firing at the deceased was assigned to applicant and co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal. After rejection of second bail application of applicant, similarly placed co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48000 of 2023. Case of applicant is also on similar footing.

5. It is further submitted that after rejection of second bail application, applicant has filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial court to complete the trial within the period prescribed by this Court while deciding the second bail application or to complete the trial 3 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 within extended period of three months, but trial has not been concluded so far, whereas a period of about one year has passed since then. The applicant has no criminal history. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant may be granted bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first and second bail of applicant have already been rejected. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded. It was submitted that trial is being delayed by the accused persons. However, it could not be disputed that similar placed co-accused Tarkeshwar Mudgal has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the role of the applicant is similar to him.

7. It is apparent from record that the trial court has failed to conclude the trial within the period prescribed by this Court as well within the period prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicant has no criminal history. Similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail. Applicant is in jail since 06.11.2021.

8. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant - Shivank @ Shivanshu Mudgal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. 4 BAIL No. 15437 of 2025 iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 13, 2025 A.N. Mishra (Raj Beer Singh,J.) AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad