State v. Anuj Agrawal), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21080 of 2025 Anuj Agrawal State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kakkar, Vijit Saxena, Vineeta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiv Kumar Singh Yadav Court No. - 51 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
detention of about eight years and four months. It is well settled that right of 4 BAIL No. 21080 of 2025 speedy trial of an accused is part of fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts of the matter, particularly the period of detention of applicant and stage of trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the present second bail application is hereby allowed. 10. Let the applicant Anuj Agarwal involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case. 11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant, in accordance with law. October 8, 2025 CS/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Sessions Trial No.756 of 2017 (State Vs. Anuj Agrawal), arising out of Case Crime No.351 of 2017, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024, which is reproduced as below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused involved in Case Crime No.351 of 2017, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant-accused that applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. As per prosecution version, while the informant along with her husband was collecting food from the '"Harish Bhojnalaya", two unknown persons have fired bullets at them and resultantly, they sustained injuries and husband of informant died. Learned counsel submitted that no test identification parade of applicant has been conducted. The prosecution has developed a false version that applicant was identified 2 BAIL No. 21080 of 2025 on the basis of some C.C.T.V. footage by an informer but no such C.C.T.V. footage has been seized and that there is nothing to show that the compliance of section 65-B Evidence Act was made. The prosecution version that after arrest of the applicant, the informant has suddenly reached there and identified the applicant, is wholly false. Further, the arrest memo of applicant does not bear the signature of informant, which also goes to show that she was not present there. Learned counsel submitted that as the incident was quite serious and police was under tremendous pressure to work out the case, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis that he was having some criminal history. The identification of applicant is highly disputed. It was further submitted that applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 07.06.2017, having no criminal history, and that in case the applicant-accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the alleged incident, the applicant and co-accused have committed murder of deceased in mid of city by firing bullets and the informant has also sustained fire-arm injuries. There is eye-witness account that applicant was involved in the incident. The C.C.T.V. footage installed around the place of incident also shows that applicant was involved in the incident. It was also pointed out that bail application of co- accused Pawan Hazari @ Pawan Patel has already been rejected on merits by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant-accused is hereby rejected. 6. However, keeping in view of the period of incarceration of applicant-accused and also the fact that while rejecting the bail application of co-accused Pawan Hazari @ Pawan Patel the trial court was directed to expedite the trial, it is again directed that trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. " 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report and that he was falsely been implicated in this case during investigation merely on the basis of resemblance of physical features of his body with the person allegedly shown in the CCTV footage. Learned counsel has referred observations made in the case diary, wherein it has been mentioned that an informer has told the police that the person shown in the CCTV footage has similarity with applicant accused. Learned counsel has referred statements of injured and submitted that her version regarding involvement of applicant in the incident is highly doubtful. No identification parade of applicant has been conducted. Referring to facts of the matter, it 3 BAIL No. 21080 of 2025 was submitted that identity of applicant is highly doubtful. 5. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 and trial court was directed to expedite the trial and to proceed in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and to conclude the trial within a period of six months. The copy of that order was produced before the trial court without any undue delay but despite that trial has not been concluded so far. Criminal history of 17 cases shown against applicant has been explained. It is further submitted that applicant has already undergone detention of eight years and four months and that a number of witnesses are yet to be examined and thus trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Referring to aforesaid facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicant may be granted bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that applicant was involved in the incident. It was submitted that in the alleged incident the informant has sustained injuries and her husband was murdered in broad day light. Applicant is a habitual offender and he has long criminal history of 17 cases. Learned counsel has referred statement of injured and pointed out that she has clearly stated that she has identified the applicant accused. It was submitted that the trial is being delayed by the accused as an application was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the witness. Further, some material witnesses are yet to be examined and thus at this stage applicant must not be granted bail. First bail application of applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case for bail is made out. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Perusal of record shows that applicant is not named in the first information report and his involvement was shown on the basis of similarity of his feature with the alleged miscreant shown in CCTV footage. While rejecting the first bail application of applicant the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and to proceed in accordance with provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. and to conclude the trial within a period of six months but trial has not been concluded so far. Applicant accused has already undergone