Granting the bail to the v. State of Maharashtra and Another

3. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.972 of 2020, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person- Badal is stated to have caught hold of the deceased person whereby the applicant and co-accused-Abhishek are stated to have fired at the deceased person causing his death on 09.11.2020 at about 04:15 PM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about more than seven hours and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. The said delay in FIR speaks volume of false implication. Learned counsel has further stated that prosecution has changed the story drastically. In supplementary statement of the very same informant, whereby the co- accused person-Abhishek has been exonerated by him rather it was stated by him that he was not present at the time of offence and subsequently two more accused persons, namely, Satyam Khokhar and Shubham Saroha @ 2 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 Honey and two other eye witness, namely, Deepak and Sandeep have been introduced by him. It has come up in the story that three accused persons including the applicant had fired at the deceased person causing his death. It is further argued that it is true that deceased had sustained three gun-shot injuries but the said prosecution witnesses have been introduced after legal consultation. Had the story been so as narrated by the informant subsequently and by the two eye witness, namely, Deepak and Sandeep, the same would have come up at the time of institution of FIR which was also instituted after a delay after legal consultation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also brought forward the fact that the inquest report is ante timed as the date of starting the inquest and completion of inquest is 09.11.2020 but nowhere the time of inquest proceedings have been mentioned in it. Strangely, even the case crime number and sections are mentioned on the face of the said inquest report, even the signatures of the Investigating Officer bears the date of the post mortem is 10.11.2020 10:40 AM. Criminal history of 10 cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since

12.11.2020, as such, he is incarcerated for about four years and nine months, therefore, fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. Applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 08.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, only one witness has been examined.

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; 3 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 (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 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; 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 4 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 "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. 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.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said inconsistency in the statement of witness to the FIR and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration and the said fact regarding the inquest report, 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.

16. Let the applicant- Monit @ Chhotu, 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.

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 5 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 8, 2025 Karan (Krishan Pahal,J.) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.972 of 2020, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person- Badal is stated to have caught hold of the deceased person whereby the applicant and co-accused-Abhishek are stated to have fired at the deceased person causing his death on 09.11.2020 at about 04:15 PM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about more than seven hours and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. The said delay in FIR speaks volume of false implication. Learned counsel has further stated that prosecution has changed the story drastically. In supplementary statement of the very same informant, whereby the co- accused person-Abhishek has been exonerated by him rather it was stated by him that he was not present at the time of offence and subsequently two more accused persons, namely, Satyam Khokhar and Shubham Saroha @ 2 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 Honey and two other eye witness, namely, Deepak and Sandeep have been introduced by him. It has come up in the story that three accused persons including the applicant had fired at the deceased person causing his death. It is further argued that it is true that deceased had sustained three gun-shot injuries but the said prosecution witnesses have been introduced after legal consultation. Had the story been so as narrated by the informant subsequently and by the two eye witness, namely, Deepak and Sandeep, the same would have come up at the time of institution of FIR which was also instituted after a delay after legal consultation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also brought forward the fact that the inquest report is ante timed as the date of starting the inquest and completion of inquest is 09.11.2020 but nowhere the time of inquest proceedings have been mentioned in it. Strangely, even the case crime number and sections are mentioned on the face of the said inquest report, even the signatures of the Investigating Officer bears the date of the post mortem is 10.11.2020 10:40 AM. Criminal history of 10 cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since

12.11.2020, as such, he is incarcerated for about four years and nine months, therefore, fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. Applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 08.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, only one witness has been examined.

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; 3 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 (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 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; 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 4 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 "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. 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.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said inconsistency in the statement of witness to the FIR and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration and the said fact regarding the inquest report, 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.

16. Let the applicant- Monit @ Chhotu, 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.

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 5 BAIL No. 44045 of 2023 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 8, 2025 Karan (Krishan Pahal,J.) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad