Vikash Kanjad … v. State of U.P

ground for granting bail? If the answer is in the affirmative, what are the parameters on which the bail can be granted for framing a defence strategy, collecting defence evidence and conduct of defence and at what stage?

4. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel, Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendra Singhal, learned counsel, Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel, Shri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel, Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel, Shri Madhu Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Amiruddin Siddique, learned counsel, Shri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel, 9 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 Shri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel, Shri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel, Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, Shri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel, Shri Gireesh Chandra Sharma, learned counsel, Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned counsel, Shri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel, Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel, Shri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Narendra Singh, learned counsel, Shri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel, Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel, Shri Saket Jaiswal, learned counsel and Shri Samrat Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant (as Hon’ble Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J. then was) has since been elevated to the Bench of this Court.

4.1. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. III. Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:

5. The hearings on the common legal issue arising in all the companion bail applications happened on various dates. Learned counsels for the applicants in all matters have made the following submissions on the common legal issue that has arisen for consideration: I. The right of bail is sourced to statute, however, it has deep roots in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court 10 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 should adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications. “Bail not jail” is the guiding principle of the law of bails. II. The defence of an accused is a primary ingredient of a fair trial. III. The prosecution has concluded its evidence. In some connected cases prosecution evidence is nearing closure. There is no possibility of the applicant(s) influencing witnesses. Cooperation of the applicant(s) in the investigations and his/her conduct during the trial is a relevant factor to be considered. IV. The police investigations were incompetent and overlooked evidences which established the innocence of the applicant(s). V. The applicant(s) had cooperated in the investigations and faithfully joined the trial proceedings. VI. The applicant(s) did not tamper with the evidence nor influence witnesses. VII. Denial of bail for defence in the circumstances and at this stage of the trial in all these cases will compromise the defence and result in miscarriage of justice. The refusal to grant bail for gathering defence and to conduct effective pairokari of the case will violate the fundamental right of fair trial of the applicant(s) who belongs to socio economically marginalized sections of the citizenry. 11 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025

6. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A.-I for the State have made the following submissions : I. Bail cannot be granted for defence purposes as it would entail grant of bail in all cases [Ref: Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director1] II. While considering grant of bail, right of victim and the perspective of the prosecution also have to be considered. III. Once the trial has commenced, bail cannot be granted. [Ref: X v. State of Rajasthan and another2] IV. Bail: Grounds for grant/denial of bail:

7. Grant of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion. Over the years judicial conventions have developed parameters which guide exercise of judicial power in bail matters. Law of bails is an accumulation of such judicial conventions. The aforesaid conventions which were adhered to by courts while considering bail applications later crystallized into case laws. In fact judicial conventions have been so strong that till very recently case laws pertaining to considerations for grant of bail have been sparse.

8. The criteria for grant of bail so evolved over the years include the gravity of offence and its impact on society. The nature of implicatory evidence against an accused is an 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 70 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024 12 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 important factor. The requirements of the investigation agency too need to be factored in. For example need of police custody of an accused for collecting evidence or making recoveries or preventing disappearance of evidence may need examination in the facts and circumstances of a case.

9. The ability of an applicant to influence witnesses or tamper with evidences in general is a germane factor for grant of bail since the same directly bears upon the sanctity of the trial process. Criminal history of an accused and possibilities of reoffending, or the accused being a flight risk who may escape the process of law to cheat justice are also important issues for consideration while deciding bail applications.

10. The primary purpose of bails in criminal cases is to initially ensure that accused persons support the investigations, and later to secure the presence of the accused at the trial.

11. The discussion shall now be fortified by authorities in point.

12. Acknowledging that the law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is well settled, the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another3 stated the need for exercise of judicial discretion in a just manner while granting bails, and also enunciated the grounds for granting subsequent bails: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a 3 (2004) 7 SCC 528 13 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.

19...The admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement and the effect of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and the merit of the evidence that may be adduced hereinafter including that of the witnesses sought to be recalled are all matters to be considered at the stage of the trial.”

13. The need for reasons while granting bail but avoiding conclusive findings in the order was reiterated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra): “18. We agree that a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by both the sides is not expected of the court considering a bail application. Still one should not forget, as observed by this Court in the case Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] : (SCC p. 344, para 8) “Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. … That did not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated.” We respectfully agree with the above dictum of this Court. We also feel that such expression of prima facie reasons for granting bail is a requirement of law in cases where such orders on bail application are appealable, more 14 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 so because of the fact that the appellate court has every right to know the basis for granting the bail. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the accused that the High Court was not expected even to indicate a prima facie finding on all points urged before it while granting bail, more so in the background of the facts of this case where on facts it is established that a large number of witnesses who were examined after the respondent was enlarged on bail had turned hostile and there are complaints made to the court as to the threats administered by the respondent or his supporters to witnesses in the case. In such circumstances, the Court was duty-bound to apply its mind to the allegations put forth by the investigating agency and ought to have given at least a prima facie finding in regard to these allegations because they go to the very root of the right of the accused to seek bail. The non-consideration of these vital facts as to the allegations of threat or inducement made to the witnesses by the respondent during the period he was on bail has vitiated the conclusions arrived at by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent. The other ground apart from the ground of incarceration which appealed to the High Court to grant bail was the fact that a large number of witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no likelihood of the trial coming to an end in the near future. As stated hereinabove, this ground on the facts of this case is also not sufficient either individually or coupled with the period of incarceration to release the respondent on bail because of the serious allegations of tampering with the witnesses made against the respondent.”

14. For importance of reasoned bail orders, (also see: para 3 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others4, para 35 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and another5 and para 11 Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another6)

15. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi7 detailed the factors to be examined while deciding bail applications: “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)

ground for granting bail? If the answer is in the affirmative, what are the parameters on which the bail can be granted for framing a defence strategy, collecting defence evidence and conduct of defence and at what stage?

4. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel, Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendra Singhal, learned counsel, Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel, Shri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel, Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel, Shri Madhu Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Amiruddin Siddique, learned counsel, Shri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel, 9 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 Shri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel, Shri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel, Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, Shri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel, Shri Gireesh Chandra Sharma, learned counsel, Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned counsel, Shri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel, Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel, Shri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel, Shri Narendra Singh, learned counsel, Shri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel, Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel, Shri Saket Jaiswal, learned counsel and Shri Samrat Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant (as Hon’ble Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J. then was) has since been elevated to the Bench of this Court.

4.1. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. III. Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:

5. The hearings on the common legal issue arising in all the companion bail applications happened on various dates. Learned counsels for the applicants in all matters have made the following submissions on the common legal issue that has arisen for consideration: I. The right of bail is sourced to statute, however, it has deep roots in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court 10 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 should adopt a liberal approach while considering bail applications. “Bail not jail” is the guiding principle of the law of bails. II. The defence of an accused is a primary ingredient of a fair trial. III. The prosecution has concluded its evidence. In some connected cases prosecution evidence is nearing closure. There is no possibility of the applicant(s) influencing witnesses. Cooperation of the applicant(s) in the investigations and his/her conduct during the trial is a relevant factor to be considered. IV. The police investigations were incompetent and overlooked evidences which established the innocence of the applicant(s). V. The applicant(s) had cooperated in the investigations and faithfully joined the trial proceedings. VI. The applicant(s) did not tamper with the evidence nor influence witnesses. VII. Denial of bail for defence in the circumstances and at this stage of the trial in all these cases will compromise the defence and result in miscarriage of justice. The refusal to grant bail for gathering defence and to conduct effective pairokari of the case will violate the fundamental right of fair trial of the applicant(s) who belongs to socio economically marginalized sections of the citizenry. 11 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025

6. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A.-I for the State have made the following submissions : I. Bail cannot be granted for defence purposes as it would entail grant of bail in all cases [Ref: Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director1] II. While considering grant of bail, right of victim and the perspective of the prosecution also have to be considered. III. Once the trial has commenced, bail cannot be granted. [Ref: X v. State of Rajasthan and another2] IV. Bail: Grounds for grant/denial of bail:

7. Grant of bail is an exercise of judicial discretion. Over the years judicial conventions have developed parameters which guide exercise of judicial power in bail matters. Law of bails is an accumulation of such judicial conventions. The aforesaid conventions which were adhered to by courts while considering bail applications later crystallized into case laws. In fact judicial conventions have been so strong that till very recently case laws pertaining to considerations for grant of bail have been sparse.

8. The criteria for grant of bail so evolved over the years include the gravity of offence and its impact on society. The nature of implicatory evidence against an accused is an 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 70 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378 of 2024 12 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 important factor. The requirements of the investigation agency too need to be factored in. For example need of police custody of an accused for collecting evidence or making recoveries or preventing disappearance of evidence may need examination in the facts and circumstances of a case.

9. The ability of an applicant to influence witnesses or tamper with evidences in general is a germane factor for grant of bail since the same directly bears upon the sanctity of the trial process. Criminal history of an accused and possibilities of reoffending, or the accused being a flight risk who may escape the process of law to cheat justice are also important issues for consideration while deciding bail applications.

10. The primary purpose of bails in criminal cases is to initially ensure that accused persons support the investigations, and later to secure the presence of the accused at the trial.

11. The discussion shall now be fortified by authorities in point.

12. Acknowledging that the law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is well settled, the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another3 stated the need for exercise of judicial discretion in a just manner while granting bails, and also enunciated the grounds for granting subsequent bails: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a 3 (2004) 7 SCC 528 13 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.

19...The admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement and the effect of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and the merit of the evidence that may be adduced hereinafter including that of the witnesses sought to be recalled are all matters to be considered at the stage of the trial.”

13. The need for reasons while granting bail but avoiding conclusive findings in the order was reiterated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra): “18. We agree that a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by both the sides is not expected of the court considering a bail application. Still one should not forget, as observed by this Court in the case Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] : (SCC p. 344, para 8) “Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. … That did not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated.” We respectfully agree with the above dictum of this Court. We also feel that such expression of prima facie reasons for granting bail is a requirement of law in cases where such orders on bail application are appealable, more 14 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19170 of 2025 so because of the fact that the appellate court has every right to know the basis for granting the bail. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the accused that the High Court was not expected even to indicate a prima facie finding on all points urged before it while granting bail, more so in the background of the facts of this case where on facts it is established that a large number of witnesses who were examined after the respondent was enlarged on bail had turned hostile and there are complaints made to the court as to the threats administered by the respondent or his supporters to witnesses in the case. In such circumstances, the Court was duty-bound to apply its mind to the allegations put forth by the investigating agency and ought to have given at least a prima facie finding in regard to these allegations because they go to the very root of the right of the accused to seek bail. The non-consideration of these vital facts as to the allegations of threat or inducement made to the witnesses by the respondent during the period he was on bail has vitiated the conclusions arrived at by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent. The other ground apart from the ground of incarceration which appealed to the High Court to grant bail was the fact that a large number of witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no likelihood of the trial coming to an end in the near future. As stated hereinabove, this ground on the facts of this case is also not sufficient either individually or coupled with the period of incarceration to release the respondent on bail because of the serious allegations of tampering with the witnesses made against the respondent.”

14. For importance of reasoned bail orders, (also see: para 3 Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others4, para 35 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar and another5 and para 11 Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat and another6)

15. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi7 detailed the factors to be examined while deciding bail applications: “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)