State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.274 of 2020, under Sections 147,148,149, 336, 302, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dhampur; District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2023 but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter along with applicant co-accused Vipin, Rinku @ Rupendra, Golu @ Ritik and Banti were also made accused and in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused and above named accused have been released on bail by this Court.

4. He further submits that co-accused Golu @ Ritik has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.21359 of 2023 and co-accused Rinku @ Rupendra has been released on bail on 18.12.2023 vide Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.56024 of 2021 and co-accused Vipin has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.5430 of 2025 and co-accused Banti has been released on bail vide order dated 20.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.26868 of 2025.

5. He further submits that case of applicant is at par with above named co-accused persons. 2 BAIL No. 32660 of 2025

6. He further argued that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 23.7.2020, i.e., for the last more than five years and he was not having that however, any previous criminal history. He next submits subsequently he has been made accused in the case of Arms Act and Gangsters Act on the basis of present case.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after considering entire facts in detail first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court.

8. They further submitted that however, only general role has been assigned to all the accused in the FIR but subsequently when the statements of witnesses were recorded they they distinguished the role of co-accused Golu @ Ritik and Rinku @ Rupendra with the role of applicant.

9. They however could not dispute the fact that the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Vipin and Banti and they have been released on bail by this Court.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail for the last more than five years.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed after considering entire facts of the case but it reflects that along with applicant co-accused Golu @ Ritik, Rinku @ Rupendra, Vipin and Banti have also been made accused and in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused and all the above named accused have been released on bail by this Court.

13. Further, however, it reflects that subsequently witnesses attributed different roles to co-accused Golu @ Ritik and Rinku @ Rupendra and, therefore, on this ground it cannot be held that the case of applicant is not at par with them but as far as case of co-accused Banti and Vipin are concerned the case of applicant is at par with them.

14. Further, from the order of co-accused Vipin it reflects that while granting bail to him this Court also considered his long incarceration and applicant is also in jail for the last more than five years and, therefore, considering the observations made in the case of co-accused Vipin it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of applicant has not been violated. 3 BAIL No. 32660 of 2025

15. Further, applicant is, however, having criminal history of two other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and out of two cases one case relates to Arms Act and another case relates to provisions of U.P.Gangsters Act and it appears that both these cases arise out of the present matter and in view of this Court, on the basis of above criminal history it is not proper to withheld the instant bail application.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Ramu @ Sunil Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. 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 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.274 of 2020, under Sections 147,148,149, 336, 302, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dhampur; District Bijnor during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2023 but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter along with applicant co-accused Vipin, Rinku @ Rupendra, Golu @ Ritik and Banti were also made accused and in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused and above named accused have been released on bail by this Court.

4. He further submits that co-accused Golu @ Ritik has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.21359 of 2023 and co-accused Rinku @ Rupendra has been released on bail on 18.12.2023 vide Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.56024 of 2021 and co-accused Vipin has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.5430 of 2025 and co-accused Banti has been released on bail vide order dated 20.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.26868 of 2025.

5. He further submits that case of applicant is at par with above named co-accused persons. 2 BAIL No. 32660 of 2025

6. He further argued that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 23.7.2020, i.e., for the last more than five years and he was not having that however, any previous criminal history. He next submits subsequently he has been made accused in the case of Arms Act and Gangsters Act on the basis of present case.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after considering entire facts in detail first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court.

8. They further submitted that however, only general role has been assigned to all the accused in the FIR but subsequently when the statements of witnesses were recorded they they distinguished the role of co-accused Golu @ Ritik and Rinku @ Rupendra with the role of applicant.

9. They however could not dispute the fact that the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Vipin and Banti and they have been released on bail by this Court.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail for the last more than five years.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed after considering entire facts of the case but it reflects that along with applicant co-accused Golu @ Ritik, Rinku @ Rupendra, Vipin and Banti have also been made accused and in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused and all the above named accused have been released on bail by this Court.

13. Further, however, it reflects that subsequently witnesses attributed different roles to co-accused Golu @ Ritik and Rinku @ Rupendra and, therefore, on this ground it cannot be held that the case of applicant is not at par with them but as far as case of co-accused Banti and Vipin are concerned the case of applicant is at par with them.

14. Further, from the order of co-accused Vipin it reflects that while granting bail to him this Court also considered his long incarceration and applicant is also in jail for the last more than five years and, therefore, considering the observations made in the case of co-accused Vipin it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of applicant has not been violated. 3 BAIL No. 32660 of 2025

15. Further, applicant is, however, having criminal history of two other cases but he was not having any previous criminal history and out of two cases one case relates to Arms Act and another case relates to provisions of U.P.Gangsters Act and it appears that both these cases arise out of the present matter and in view of this Court, on the basis of above criminal history it is not proper to withheld the instant bail application.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Ramu @ Sunil Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. 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 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad