High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137963 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22520 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiv Pandey Alias Shiv Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.
Legal Reasoning
17. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. 18. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. 19. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. 20. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant." 21. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the applicant had an intimate relationship with the deceased person and the said fact stands established with the material recovered from the alleged tablet coupled by the fact that the applicant is the owner of the alleged scorpio car and also taking into consideration the said three eye-witnesses, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 23. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 24. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the
Arguments
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Durvijay Singh, learned AAG assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 55, 316(2), 317(2), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station - Knowledge Park, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:- 4. The driver of the Scorpio Car No. DL8CAP3470 is stated to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused grievous injuries to the informant's daughter (now deceased) on 16.01.2025 at about 05:30 PM near Ansal Plaza, Village Tugalpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:- 5. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither named in the FIR nor committed the said offence as alleged in it. 6. The FIR has been instituted against unknown person, who was driving the alleged Scorpio Car, on 18.01.2025 at about 04:17 PM with the delay of about two days of the incident and there is no proper explanation of the said delay caused. 7. The entire story has been cooked up subsequently after a delay of 12 days by means of supplementary statement of the informant recorded u/s 180 BNSS whereby she has stated that she found a tablet in the bag of her daughter and in the said tablet, there were indecent photographs of her daughter with the applicant. The chatting between the two also indicated that duo had an intimate relationship. The said photographs and the chats have been given in a pen drive to the Investigating Officer by the informant. It is argued that the said photographs do not indicate that the applicant has committed the said offence. 8. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was driving the said scorpio car at the time of incident. 9. The co-accused Pratima Pandey, who happens to be the wife of the applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 19037 of 2025. 10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.01.2025, having no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:- 11. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that it is a clear cut case of murder as the applicant in a premeditated way, had committed the said offence. The said fact stands corroborated by the statement of the informant, who has categorically stated that her daughter had left her house on being called by the applicant and it was he, who has committed her murder. 12. The truth is that the applicant is a married person and had an extra-marital affair with the informant's daughter and wanted to get rid off their relationship as it went sour. The said fact stands corroborated by the material recovered from the alleged tablet of the deceased person. 13. There are three eye-witnesses, namely, Vikas, Mohit and Dashrath, who have witnessed the incident and seen the applicant driving the alleged Scorpio Car. 14. The applicant is the registered owner of the alleged Scorpio Car No. DL8CAP3470, as such, he is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:- 15. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. 16. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.