High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27843 of 2023 (Anil vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anil, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. Case Crime No.400 of 2022, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 but the fact which as of now has transpired is that the recovery of the dead body, blade and wooden piece as shown to be on the pointing out of the applicant is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has placed the statement of Sagar P.W.-1, Sub-Inspector Hemant Kumar P.W.-6 and Inspector Vinod Kumar P.W.-10 which are annexed collectively as Annexure-C.A.-1 to the compliance affidavit dated 21.04.2025 of the State and while placing those statements has submitted that the said recoveries are false and fabricated. It is submitted that there is thus no such credible and legal evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 and is in jail since 22.09.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which 10 witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that the trial is at fag end. It is submitted that the appreciation of the statement of the witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023. The same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gorakh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anil, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.400 of 2022, under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 21.9.2022 under section 364 IPC by Sagar against the applicant alleging therein that on 19.9.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. his nephew Atul Kumar who was at the house went away from the house without telling anyone at about 8 p.m. When he did not return for quite some time, he was searched at various places but he could not be traced. On information he came to know that he had called his friend Ankit Saini and told him that he is with his neighbour Anil. Later on first informant called his nephew on phone which was switched-off and his nephew Atul did not return back. Anil was then called and asked about it who said that Atul is not with him and switched-off his mobile. He has suspicion that Anil has taken away Atul with him and has indulged in some untoward incident. The FIR be thus lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only. Although the police has shown recovery of a dead-body on the pointing out of the applicant and further recovered a piece of wood and blade on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as recovery of dead-body is concerned, there is no separate recovery memo made which is available in the case diary, para 20 of the affidavit has been placed. It is argued that in so far as the recovery of wooden piece and blade is concerned, there is no independent witness to support the said recovery. It is argued that as such implication of the applicant is totally without any credible evidence. It is further argued that postmortem examination of the deceased Atul was conducted wherein the doctor has opined the time since death as about 3-4 days. It is argued that dead-body was recovered on 22.9.2022 and as per the FIR the deceased had gone from the house on 19.9.2022. It is argued that the same also does not in any manner show that the deceased was with the applicant from the said period. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.9.2022.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and on his pointing out the dead-body and the weapon of assault have been recovered. The deceased was found to have been strangulated. The dead-body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as the separate recovery memo is concerned, it is argued that instructions as received for para 20 state that no separate recovery memo has been prepared. Looking to the facts the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The dead-body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. There has been recovery of wooden piece and blade on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as the preparation of recovery memo is concerned, the same is a matter of trial to be seen therein. The time since death as per post-mortem report corroborates with the prosecution version.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. The effort of learned counsel for the applicant is to demonstrate from the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-6 and P.W.-10 that the alleged recoveries on the pointing out of the applicant are doubtful. The same is for the trial court to appreciate at the appropriate stage. The trial is at an advanced stage. No ground for bail exists.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest without granting any undue adjournment to either of the parties.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27843 of 2023 (Anil vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anil, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. Case Crime No.400 of 2022, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 but the fact which as of now has transpired is that the recovery of the dead body, blade and wooden piece as shown to be on the pointing out of the applicant is false and incorrect. Learned counsel has placed the statement of Sagar P.W.-1, Sub-Inspector Hemant Kumar P.W.-6 and Inspector Vinod Kumar P.W.-10 which are annexed collectively as Annexure-C.A.-1 to the compliance affidavit dated 21.04.2025 of the State and while placing those statements has submitted that the said recoveries are false and fabricated. It is submitted that there is thus no such credible and legal evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 and is in jail since 22.09.2022.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which 10 witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that the trial is at fag end. It is submitted that the appreciation of the statement of the witnesses is for the trial court to do at the appropriate stage in the trial. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023. The same reads as under:- "1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gorakh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Anil, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.400 of 2022, under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 21.9.2022 under section 364 IPC by Sagar against the applicant alleging therein that on 19.9.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. his nephew Atul Kumar who was at the house went away from the house without telling anyone at about 8 p.m. When he did not return for quite some time, he was searched at various places but he could not be traced. On information he came to know that he had called his friend Ankit Saini and told him that he is with his neighbour Anil. Later on first informant called his nephew on phone which was switched-off and his nephew Atul did not return back. Anil was then called and asked about it who said that Atul is not with him and switched-off his mobile. He has suspicion that Anil has taken away Atul with him and has indulged in some untoward incident. The FIR be thus lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only. Although the police has shown recovery of a dead-body on the pointing out of the applicant and further recovered a piece of wood and blade on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as recovery of dead-body is concerned, there is no separate recovery memo made which is available in the case diary, para 20 of the affidavit has been placed. It is argued that in so far as the recovery of wooden piece and blade is concerned, there is no independent witness to support the said recovery. It is argued that as such implication of the applicant is totally without any credible evidence. It is further argued that postmortem examination of the deceased Atul was conducted wherein the doctor has opined the time since death as about 3-4 days. It is argued that dead-body was recovered on 22.9.2022 and as per the FIR the deceased had gone from the house on 19.9.2022. It is argued that the same also does not in any manner show that the deceased was with the applicant from the said period. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.9.2022.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and on his pointing out the dead-body and the weapon of assault have been recovered. The deceased was found to have been strangulated. The dead-body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as the separate recovery memo is concerned, it is argued that instructions as received for para 20 state that no separate recovery memo has been prepared. Looking to the facts the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The dead-body of the deceased has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. There has been recovery of wooden piece and blade on the pointing out of the applicant. In so far as the preparation of recovery memo is concerned, the same is a matter of trial to be seen therein. The time since death as per post-mortem report corroborates with the prosecution version.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

8. The effort of learned counsel for the applicant is to demonstrate from the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-6 and P.W.-10 that the alleged recoveries on the pointing out of the applicant are doubtful. The same is for the trial court to appreciate at the appropriate stage. The trial is at an advanced stage. No ground for bail exists.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest without granting any undue adjournment to either of the parties.

11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad