State of U.P v. Party

3. Heard Senior Advocate Sri Dilip Gupta assisted by Sri Rajarshi Gupta and Sri Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.182 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2) and 351(3) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Shivkuti, District Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The informant along with his brother Akhilesh Shukla @ Guddu and one Poni Yadav was sitting near Amitabh Bacchan Culvert on 17.11.2024 at about 10:00 p.m., whereupon the named accused person Nikhil Singh along with 4-5 unknown persons reached there and started firing at them from the pistols they were carrying and all the accused persons assaulted him with iron rod and the butts of the rifles and also fired at him, who fell down instantaneously and the informant and other persons could not resist as the they were carrying weapons with them. 2 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

6. The injured person was immediately rushed to Acura Hospital, Civil Lines, whereby his elder brother was threatened by the named accused person Nikhil Singh on his mobile no.9451853258 from his mobile no.9580690714. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The FIR is delayed by about 13 hours and 35 minutes and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. There is no medical document regarding the treatment at Acura Hospital, Civil Lines appended at the time of filing of charge-sheet. There is no such document on record, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified.

9. The deceased expired on 21.11.2024 at S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow.

10. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently in the statement of one of the eye-witness Poni Yadav, who has stated that he knew the applicant very-well and has categorically nominated the applicant and other co-accused persons in his statement.

11. Had the applicant, the informant and Poni Yadav been there, the name of the applicant would have itself crept up at the stage of institution of the FIR itself, which was instituted about 13 hours and 35 minutes after the incident.

12. The informant did not nominate the applicant in his first statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., but subsequently in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he has categorically nominated the applicant and has stated that he knew the applicant very-well beforehand and he was present at the spot. He has also stated that other eye- witnesses to the incident might be Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra.

13. The statements of the said eye-witnesses Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and they have not nominated the applicant in their statements so recorded.

14. It is true that the location of the applicant was found within the tower of Chandpur Salori, but it does not indicate that the applicant was present at the 3 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 place of occurrence and can be held liable for the said offence committed. The complicity could have been established, only if the coordinates of mobile numbers of the applicant, the deceased person and the eye-witnesses would have been available. There are no coordinates available on record.

15. The conditions at the Trial Court are not conducive for the accused persons. After much persuasion, only the charge has been framed against the applicant and co-accused persons. It is admitted fact that that the deceased person was an advocate and the informant himself is a practicing advocate at District Court, Prayagraj. The applicant could not get the legal support there and after much persuasion could engage an advocate belatedly, as such, the charge could not be framed, but of late the charge has been framed on

10.09.2025.

16. No particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant and no weapon has also been assigned to him. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant.

17. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

18. The applicant was known to the informant, but could not institute the FIR on time as it was foremost duty of the informant to first save the life of his brother and then institute the FIR. He first rushed his brother to Acura Hospital, Civil Lines and thereupon his brother took him to S.R.N. Hospital and from there he was taken to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow, where he sadly expired.

19. The applicant was a security guard in the said company which was involved in construction of riverfront at Ganga River during Mahakumbh, as such, being a security guard, it was not possible for him to nominate him in the FIR.

20. The threat given by the named accused person Nitin Singh to the 4 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 informant stands established from the call details, which are well on record and have also been filed by the counsel for the applicant.

21. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in Santosh Kumari vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 234, whereby the delay has been considered by the Supreme Court and it has been stated that the delay if properly explained cannot be a ground for grant of bail. Paragraph 35 of the judgment is reproduced herein as under:-

35. It may be mentioned that the order admitting the accused except accused Subhash Singh to interim bail of Rs 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court pending consideration of the prosecution case afresh on question of charge, was not warranted nor justified at all. Before granting interim bail to the accused the High Court could not have afforded to ignore the testimony of the eyewitnesses including that of the appellant who is the wife of the deceased, merely because the deceased had received only one injury nor the accused could have been accorded the benefit of temporary bail on the specious plea that they were facing trial over a period of three years. The record of the case nowhere shows that the prosecution was responsible in any manner at all for so-called delay in holding trial against the accused.

22. The Supreme Court has also opined in the said judgment that the Courts granting bail to the accused persons should not pass speaking orders, otherwise the said speaking orders may effect the trial. The accused persons are undertrial and the trial is at its inception.

23. Much reliance has also been placed on paragraph nos.3, 20.2.3 and

20.3.6 of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sate of Karnataka vs. SRI Darshan ETC., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, which read as under:-

3. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons under sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the basis of a complaint dated 09.06.2024 lodged by one Keval Ram Dorji, Security Officer of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, after the dead body of an unknown male aged approximately 30 to 35 years bearing visible injuries, was discovered by the roadside near the drainage in front of the said Apartment.

20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings.

20.3.6. In the present case, the High Court also proceeded to analyse and 5 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 discount the credibility of certain prosecution witnesses and forensic material. It observed contradictions in the eyewitness statements concerning the overt acts of the accused (para 26). It expressed doubts about the prosecution's explanation for the delay in recording the statements of CW. 76 and CW. 91 (para 27). It questioned the timing of the doctor's supplementary opinion and weighed its evidentiary worth (para 31). As already pointed out, the credibility or reliability of witnesses is a matter for the trial Court to determine after full-fledged cross examination. It is a trite law that statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive, and their evidentiary value can only be determined after cross examination during trial. Any opinion rendered at the bail stage risks prejudging the outcome of the trial and must be avoided. Thus, the court's assessment of these aspects amounts to a premature appreciation of the probative value of prosecution evidence.

24. The delay, if any, caused due to the defence counsels as they sought adjournments 32 times. There is every apprehension in the minds of the informant and the witnesses to their life as has been mentioned in the order- sheet of the trial Court.

25. Much reliance has been placed on certain discrepancies in the earlier orders of bail granted to the co-accused persons. IN REBUTTAL:

26. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said discrepancy is regarding the word '13'. Earlier on, it has been mentioned that the FIR was delayed by 13 hours and 35 minutes, but inadvertently as a typographical error, it has been mentioned subsequently as 13 days. The bail has not been granted on the basis of the said delay of 13 days, rather it has been granted on merits. CONCLUSION:

27. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

28. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 6 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

29. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

30. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

31. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

32. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.

33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by about 13 hours and 35 minutes and it is admitted by the counsel for the informant that the informant is an advocate coupled with the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and even his name has come up in the supplementary statement of the informant and the name of the applicant does not find mentioned in the statements of two purported eye-witnesses, namely, Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra, 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. 7 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

34. Let the applicant- Ajay Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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.

35. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

36. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

37. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Senior Advocate Sri Dilip Gupta assisted by Sri Rajarshi Gupta and Sri Rizwan Ahamad, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.182 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2) and 351(3) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Shivkuti, District Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The informant along with his brother Akhilesh Shukla @ Guddu and one Poni Yadav was sitting near Amitabh Bacchan Culvert on 17.11.2024 at about 10:00 p.m., whereupon the named accused person Nikhil Singh along with 4-5 unknown persons reached there and started firing at them from the pistols they were carrying and all the accused persons assaulted him with iron rod and the butts of the rifles and also fired at him, who fell down instantaneously and the informant and other persons could not resist as the they were carrying weapons with them. 2 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

6. The injured person was immediately rushed to Acura Hospital, Civil Lines, whereby his elder brother was threatened by the named accused person Nikhil Singh on his mobile no.9451853258 from his mobile no.9580690714. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The FIR is delayed by about 13 hours and 35 minutes and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. There is no medical document regarding the treatment at Acura Hospital, Civil Lines appended at the time of filing of charge-sheet. There is no such document on record, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified.

9. The deceased expired on 21.11.2024 at S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow.

10. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently in the statement of one of the eye-witness Poni Yadav, who has stated that he knew the applicant very-well and has categorically nominated the applicant and other co-accused persons in his statement.

11. Had the applicant, the informant and Poni Yadav been there, the name of the applicant would have itself crept up at the stage of institution of the FIR itself, which was instituted about 13 hours and 35 minutes after the incident.

12. The informant did not nominate the applicant in his first statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., but subsequently in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he has categorically nominated the applicant and has stated that he knew the applicant very-well beforehand and he was present at the spot. He has also stated that other eye- witnesses to the incident might be Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra.

13. The statements of the said eye-witnesses Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and they have not nominated the applicant in their statements so recorded.

14. It is true that the location of the applicant was found within the tower of Chandpur Salori, but it does not indicate that the applicant was present at the 3 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 place of occurrence and can be held liable for the said offence committed. The complicity could have been established, only if the coordinates of mobile numbers of the applicant, the deceased person and the eye-witnesses would have been available. There are no coordinates available on record.

15. The conditions at the Trial Court are not conducive for the accused persons. After much persuasion, only the charge has been framed against the applicant and co-accused persons. It is admitted fact that that the deceased person was an advocate and the informant himself is a practicing advocate at District Court, Prayagraj. The applicant could not get the legal support there and after much persuasion could engage an advocate belatedly, as such, the charge could not be framed, but of late the charge has been framed on

10.09.2025.

16. No particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant and no weapon has also been assigned to him. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant.

17. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.12.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

18. The applicant was known to the informant, but could not institute the FIR on time as it was foremost duty of the informant to first save the life of his brother and then institute the FIR. He first rushed his brother to Acura Hospital, Civil Lines and thereupon his brother took him to S.R.N. Hospital and from there he was taken to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow, where he sadly expired.

19. The applicant was a security guard in the said company which was involved in construction of riverfront at Ganga River during Mahakumbh, as such, being a security guard, it was not possible for him to nominate him in the FIR.

20. The threat given by the named accused person Nitin Singh to the 4 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 informant stands established from the call details, which are well on record and have also been filed by the counsel for the applicant.

21. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in Santosh Kumari vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 234, whereby the delay has been considered by the Supreme Court and it has been stated that the delay if properly explained cannot be a ground for grant of bail. Paragraph 35 of the judgment is reproduced herein as under:-

35. It may be mentioned that the order admitting the accused except accused Subhash Singh to interim bail of Rs 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court pending consideration of the prosecution case afresh on question of charge, was not warranted nor justified at all. Before granting interim bail to the accused the High Court could not have afforded to ignore the testimony of the eyewitnesses including that of the appellant who is the wife of the deceased, merely because the deceased had received only one injury nor the accused could have been accorded the benefit of temporary bail on the specious plea that they were facing trial over a period of three years. The record of the case nowhere shows that the prosecution was responsible in any manner at all for so-called delay in holding trial against the accused.

22. The Supreme Court has also opined in the said judgment that the Courts granting bail to the accused persons should not pass speaking orders, otherwise the said speaking orders may effect the trial. The accused persons are undertrial and the trial is at its inception.

23. Much reliance has also been placed on paragraph nos.3, 20.2.3 and

20.3.6 of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Sate of Karnataka vs. SRI Darshan ETC., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, which read as under:-

3. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons under sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the basis of a complaint dated 09.06.2024 lodged by one Keval Ram Dorji, Security Officer of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, after the dead body of an unknown male aged approximately 30 to 35 years bearing visible injuries, was discovered by the roadside near the drainage in front of the said Apartment.

20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings.

20.3.6. In the present case, the High Court also proceeded to analyse and 5 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025 discount the credibility of certain prosecution witnesses and forensic material. It observed contradictions in the eyewitness statements concerning the overt acts of the accused (para 26). It expressed doubts about the prosecution's explanation for the delay in recording the statements of CW. 76 and CW. 91 (para 27). It questioned the timing of the doctor's supplementary opinion and weighed its evidentiary worth (para 31). As already pointed out, the credibility or reliability of witnesses is a matter for the trial Court to determine after full-fledged cross examination. It is a trite law that statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive, and their evidentiary value can only be determined after cross examination during trial. Any opinion rendered at the bail stage risks prejudging the outcome of the trial and must be avoided. Thus, the court's assessment of these aspects amounts to a premature appreciation of the probative value of prosecution evidence.

24. The delay, if any, caused due to the defence counsels as they sought adjournments 32 times. There is every apprehension in the minds of the informant and the witnesses to their life as has been mentioned in the order- sheet of the trial Court.

25. Much reliance has been placed on certain discrepancies in the earlier orders of bail granted to the co-accused persons. IN REBUTTAL:

26. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said discrepancy is regarding the word '13'. Earlier on, it has been mentioned that the FIR was delayed by 13 hours and 35 minutes, but inadvertently as a typographical error, it has been mentioned subsequently as 13 days. The bail has not been granted on the basis of the said delay of 13 days, rather it has been granted on merits. CONCLUSION:

27. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

28. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 6 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

29. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

30. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

31. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

32. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.

33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by about 13 hours and 35 minutes and it is admitted by the counsel for the informant that the informant is an advocate coupled with the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and even his name has come up in the supplementary statement of the informant and the name of the applicant does not find mentioned in the statements of two purported eye-witnesses, namely, Manish Shukla and Rajesh Mishra, 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. 7 BAIL No. 24532 of 2025

34. Let the applicant- Ajay Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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.

35. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

36. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

37. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad