Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) and connected appeals being Criminal Appeal N

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents as also Sri Swetashva Agrawal, learned counsel who has put complainant/victim and perused the records. in appearance on behalf of

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Harendra s/o Mehtab has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 307, 302, 506 of I.P.C., 1860, Police Station- Falavda, District- Meerut during the pendency of the trail before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut vide order dated 15.06.2023 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2023.

3. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel at the very outset submits that this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022 granted bail to the applicant on the ground that though the applicant has been named in the FIR, yet no specific role had been assigned to the applicant for causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The main role for causing fatal injuries to the deceased was assigned to the co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. Further that the co-accused persons had been granted bail by this Court on 18.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49828 of 2021, on 31.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 965 of 2022 and on 19.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 201 of 2022. The order granting bail to the applicant herein and other co-accused persons was challenged by the original informant/complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2023 (arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 3435 of 2023 @ diary no. 36715 of 2022 (Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) and connected appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2023. The Apex Court vide its order dated 28.03.2023 set aside and quashed the orders dated 2 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

04.03.2022, 19.01.2022 and 09.02.2022 releasing the applicant and other accused persons in the aforesaid case crime number and requiring the applicant and other released accused persons to surrender before the concerned jail authorities forthwith failing which they were directed to be taken into custody forthwith. The applicant is stated to have surrendered whereafter bail was sought before the court below. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 12, Meerut rejected the bail application vide order dated 15.06.2023 and the applicant is confined in jail since 19.05.2023.

4. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes. In the FIR, 13 persons including the applicant have been nominated. No specific role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. Specific role for causing fatal injuries to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. The post-mortem report of the deceased shows one gunshot wound on right thigh and the author of the said injury is Vikas @ Pappu. There are major discrepancies in the time of treatment of injured Mohit, Luvkush, Ankush Sunder and Narish which dents the prosecution story. In the statements of the injured persons, recorded after four days of the incident only general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The fact that the deceased was in fact hale and hearty and did not die at the alleged place of incident as stated by the first informant is borne out from the general diary entry no. 2 dated 30.06.2021 of 1:30 hours in which the alleged injured Naresh and Sunder along with the deceased Sompal went to the concerned police station from where all the three injured persons were accompanied with constable Nitin Sharma and admitted to CHC, Mawana. The general diary entry aforesaid further reveals that the other three injures persons namely Mohit, Luvkush and Ankush did not accompany the deceased to the concerned police station from where the deceased was sent for medical treatment. The statement of the witnesses that the deceased died on the spot stands demolished. The non-mentioning of the exact place in the site plan where the applicant and other co-accused were alleged to have been standing or on which point to commit the offence is fatal to the prosecution story. It is also argued that the injured persons were initially treated at CHC Mawana and then referred to PL Sharma Hospital, Meerut which is a private hospital and were able to procure some medical documents on which no reliance can be placed. The recovery of a country made pistol from the pointing out of the applicant is false and planted one and does not help the prosecution in the wake of the role of firing assigned to Vikas @ Pappu and there being a solitary gun shot injury. The recovery of fire arm was also made from the said Vikas @ Pappu. It is lastly argued that co-accused Krishna Pal who had been bailed out by this Court and the bail order was set aside by the Apex Court has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44650 of 2024. The case of the applicant is at par with the case of Krishna pal. The applicant is in jail for more than two years. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 3 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

5. Per contra, the bail plea is vehemently opposed by learned AGA as also by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the first informant primarily on the ground that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has not stated the correct facts before this Court. Specifically it is stated that the factum that the interim order of no coercive steps granted in Criminal Revision No. 693 of 2024 stood vacated/discharged vide order dated 01.04.2025 had not been disclosed. The Criminal Revision No. 693 of 2024 was instituted by the additional accused persons Abhishek, Anil and Ankur who had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. It is submitted that the accused persons including the applicant during the course of trial from 25.02.2022 to 22.07.2025 took as many as 64 adjournments on one pretext or the other and in a calculated manner have been delaying the trial. It is further submitted the statements of PW1 and PW2 have already been recorded and the PW3 namely Mohit was due to be examined on 01.08.2025 and thereafter two more prosecution witnesses of fact namely Naresh and Sunder have to be examined. It is also argued that the applicant is a constable in the Delhi police and while abusing his position as such absconded during the course of investigation and only upon issuance of process/proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. that the applicant surrounded before the court below on 10.10.2021 even though the FIR was lodged on 30.06.2021. After rejection of the bail by the Apex Court on 28.03.2023 and directing to surrender forthwith the applicant surrendered on 19.05.2023 after almost two months. It has also been argued that the case of the applicant is not at par with that of Krishna Pal who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025. It has also been submitted that the bail pleas of co-accused Mehtab and Narendra have been rejected vide orders dated 10.04.2023 and 16.01.2025. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. Amardeep and others (Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2021) decided on 05.03.2021 to buttress the point that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. It is also stated that the order dated 01.04.2025 granting bail to co-accused Krishna Pal has been challenged before the Apex Court which is pending consideration and is to be heard in the near future.

6. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has refuted the submissions made by learned AGA and counsel for the first informant by submitting in substance that the applicant is not responsible for delay in the trial, the first informant has not initiated any proceedings before this court to expedite the trial, all accused persons are participating in the trial, merely because matter has been released does not mean that interim protection granted stands vacated in the absence of any speaking order, trial of the applicant and additional accused persons summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been separated, the applicant as constable Delhi police is under suspension and not in a position to influence the witnesses and is not a flight risk, the applicant promptly surrendered in compliance of the order of the Apex Court, the applicant claims parity with Krishna Pal and his bail application is liable to be considered irrespective of pendency of the aforesaid SLP before the Apex Court. 4 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the first informant particularly with regard to the conduct of the applicant in complying with the orders passed by the Court of law. The Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents as also Sri Swetashva Agrawal, learned counsel who has put complainant/victim and perused the records. in appearance on behalf of

2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Harendra s/o Mehtab has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 307, 302, 506 of I.P.C., 1860, Police Station- Falavda, District- Meerut during the pendency of the trail before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut vide order dated 15.06.2023 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2023.

3. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel at the very outset submits that this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022 granted bail to the applicant on the ground that though the applicant has been named in the FIR, yet no specific role had been assigned to the applicant for causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The main role for causing fatal injuries to the deceased was assigned to the co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. Further that the co-accused persons had been granted bail by this Court on 18.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49828 of 2021, on 31.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 965 of 2022 and on 19.01.2022 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 201 of 2022. The order granting bail to the applicant herein and other co-accused persons was challenged by the original informant/complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2023 (arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 3435 of 2023 @ diary no. 36715 of 2022 (Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) and connected appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2023. The Apex Court vide its order dated 28.03.2023 set aside and quashed the orders dated 2 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

04.03.2022, 19.01.2022 and 09.02.2022 releasing the applicant and other accused persons in the aforesaid case crime number and requiring the applicant and other released accused persons to surrender before the concerned jail authorities forthwith failing which they were directed to be taken into custody forthwith. The applicant is stated to have surrendered whereafter bail was sought before the court below. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 12, Meerut rejected the bail application vide order dated 15.06.2023 and the applicant is confined in jail since 19.05.2023.

4. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior purposes. In the FIR, 13 persons including the applicant have been nominated. No specific role of causing fatal injuries to the deceased has been assigned to the applicant. Specific role for causing fatal injuries to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Vikas @ Pappu. The post-mortem report of the deceased shows one gunshot wound on right thigh and the author of the said injury is Vikas @ Pappu. There are major discrepancies in the time of treatment of injured Mohit, Luvkush, Ankush Sunder and Narish which dents the prosecution story. In the statements of the injured persons, recorded after four days of the incident only general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The fact that the deceased was in fact hale and hearty and did not die at the alleged place of incident as stated by the first informant is borne out from the general diary entry no. 2 dated 30.06.2021 of 1:30 hours in which the alleged injured Naresh and Sunder along with the deceased Sompal went to the concerned police station from where all the three injured persons were accompanied with constable Nitin Sharma and admitted to CHC, Mawana. The general diary entry aforesaid further reveals that the other three injures persons namely Mohit, Luvkush and Ankush did not accompany the deceased to the concerned police station from where the deceased was sent for medical treatment. The statement of the witnesses that the deceased died on the spot stands demolished. The non-mentioning of the exact place in the site plan where the applicant and other co-accused were alleged to have been standing or on which point to commit the offence is fatal to the prosecution story. It is also argued that the injured persons were initially treated at CHC Mawana and then referred to PL Sharma Hospital, Meerut which is a private hospital and were able to procure some medical documents on which no reliance can be placed. The recovery of a country made pistol from the pointing out of the applicant is false and planted one and does not help the prosecution in the wake of the role of firing assigned to Vikas @ Pappu and there being a solitary gun shot injury. The recovery of fire arm was also made from the said Vikas @ Pappu. It is lastly argued that co-accused Krishna Pal who had been bailed out by this Court and the bail order was set aside by the Apex Court has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44650 of 2024. The case of the applicant is at par with the case of Krishna pal. The applicant is in jail for more than two years. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 3 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

5. Per contra, the bail plea is vehemently opposed by learned AGA as also by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the first informant primarily on the ground that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has not stated the correct facts before this Court. Specifically it is stated that the factum that the interim order of no coercive steps granted in Criminal Revision No. 693 of 2024 stood vacated/discharged vide order dated 01.04.2025 had not been disclosed. The Criminal Revision No. 693 of 2024 was instituted by the additional accused persons Abhishek, Anil and Ankur who had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. It is submitted that the accused persons including the applicant during the course of trial from 25.02.2022 to 22.07.2025 took as many as 64 adjournments on one pretext or the other and in a calculated manner have been delaying the trial. It is further submitted the statements of PW1 and PW2 have already been recorded and the PW3 namely Mohit was due to be examined on 01.08.2025 and thereafter two more prosecution witnesses of fact namely Naresh and Sunder have to be examined. It is also argued that the applicant is a constable in the Delhi police and while abusing his position as such absconded during the course of investigation and only upon issuance of process/proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. that the applicant surrounded before the court below on 10.10.2021 even though the FIR was lodged on 30.06.2021. After rejection of the bail by the Apex Court on 28.03.2023 and directing to surrender forthwith the applicant surrendered on 19.05.2023 after almost two months. It has also been argued that the case of the applicant is not at par with that of Krishna Pal who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025. It has also been submitted that the bail pleas of co-accused Mehtab and Narendra have been rejected vide orders dated 10.04.2023 and 16.01.2025. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. Amardeep and others (Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2021) decided on 05.03.2021 to buttress the point that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. It is also stated that the order dated 01.04.2025 granting bail to co-accused Krishna Pal has been challenged before the Apex Court which is pending consideration and is to be heard in the near future.

6. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has refuted the submissions made by learned AGA and counsel for the first informant by submitting in substance that the applicant is not responsible for delay in the trial, the first informant has not initiated any proceedings before this court to expedite the trial, all accused persons are participating in the trial, merely because matter has been released does not mean that interim protection granted stands vacated in the absence of any speaking order, trial of the applicant and additional accused persons summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been separated, the applicant as constable Delhi police is under suspension and not in a position to influence the witnesses and is not a flight risk, the applicant promptly surrendered in compliance of the order of the Apex Court, the applicant claims parity with Krishna Pal and his bail application is liable to be considered irrespective of pendency of the aforesaid SLP before the Apex Court. 4 BAIL No. 19005 of 2025

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the first informant particularly with regard to the conduct of the applicant in complying with the orders passed by the Court of law. The Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad