High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicants and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 427 of 2024, under Sections 105, 110, 126(2), 223, 238, 132, 121(1), 61(2) BNS and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Sikandrarao, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that however, applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but applicant nos. 2 and 3 were not named in the FIR and their involvement was surfaced during investigation.

4. He further submitted that however, it is an unfortunate case in which 121 persons died and number of people sustained injuries but neither from the FIR nor from any material available on record, it could be reflected that applicants were responsible for their deaths.

5. He further submitted that actually, prima facie, it appears to be a case of accidental deaths.

6. He further submitted that however, applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but as far as allegations are concerned, role of all the accused persons including applicant nos. 2 and 3 who were although not named in the FIR, are same.

7. He further submitted that after considering entire facts in detail, bail applications of co-accused Upendra, Ramladite, Dalveer Singh, Ram Prakash Shakya, Manju Yadav and Manju Devi have already been allowed by different co-ordinate benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed in supplementary affidavit dated 15.4.2025 filed in support to the instant bail application and case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 are exactly at par with them. He further submitted that however, above mentioned accused persons were not named in the FIR but as far as allegations are concerned even case of applicant no. 1 is also at par with them.

8. He further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since July, 2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which due to conduct of applicant and other accused persons, 121 persons lost their life and number of other accused also sustained injures.

10. He further submitted that however, permission was granted by the Administration only for eighty thousand persons but in the alleged satsang programme, lakhs of people arrived and therefore, it appears, due to negligence of applicants, more than 100 people lost their life but he could not dispute the fact that prima facie, it appears to be a case of negligence and number of other co-accused persons have already been released on bail and as far as case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned their case is exactly at par with them. He however, further submitted that applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR, therefore, his case is distinguishable from them but he could not dispute the fact that as far as allegations are concerned his case is also at par with them.

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

12. However, it is a case in which more than 121 persons died and number of persons sustained injuries and as per allegation, due to conduct of the applicants, who were sewadars incident occurred but from the record it prima facie reflects, it is a case of sheer negligence and being sewadars applicants alone cannot be held responsible for the incident.

13. Further, it appears, it was neither possible for applicants being sewadars to control lakhs of people nor they could stop the people to attend the programme.

14. Further, however, only applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but during investigation number of other persons were also made accused including applicant nos. 2 and 3 and number of other co- accused have already been released on bail by the co-ordinate benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit dated 15.4.2025 and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicants are also at par with them.

15. Further, applicants are having no criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since July, 2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

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

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

19. Let the applicants-Dev Prakash Madhukar, Mukesh and Megh Singh, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. 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 applicants.

21. 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. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicants and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 427 of 2024, under Sections 105, 110, 126(2), 223, 238, 132, 121(1), 61(2) BNS and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Sikandrarao, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that however, applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but applicant nos. 2 and 3 were not named in the FIR and their involvement was surfaced during investigation.

4. He further submitted that however, it is an unfortunate case in which 121 persons died and number of people sustained injuries but neither from the FIR nor from any material available on record, it could be reflected that applicants were responsible for their deaths.

5. He further submitted that actually, prima facie, it appears to be a case of accidental deaths.

6. He further submitted that however, applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but as far as allegations are concerned, role of all the accused persons including applicant nos. 2 and 3 who were although not named in the FIR, are same.

7. He further submitted that after considering entire facts in detail, bail applications of co-accused Upendra, Ramladite, Dalveer Singh, Ram Prakash Shakya, Manju Yadav and Manju Devi have already been allowed by different co-ordinate benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed in supplementary affidavit dated 15.4.2025 filed in support to the instant bail application and case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 are exactly at par with them. He further submitted that however, above mentioned accused persons were not named in the FIR but as far as allegations are concerned even case of applicant no. 1 is also at par with them.

8. He further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since July, 2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which due to conduct of applicant and other accused persons, 121 persons lost their life and number of other accused also sustained injures.

10. He further submitted that however, permission was granted by the Administration only for eighty thousand persons but in the alleged satsang programme, lakhs of people arrived and therefore, it appears, due to negligence of applicants, more than 100 people lost their life but he could not dispute the fact that prima facie, it appears to be a case of negligence and number of other co-accused persons have already been released on bail and as far as case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned their case is exactly at par with them. He however, further submitted that applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR, therefore, his case is distinguishable from them but he could not dispute the fact that as far as allegations are concerned his case is also at par with them.

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

12. However, it is a case in which more than 121 persons died and number of persons sustained injuries and as per allegation, due to conduct of the applicants, who were sewadars incident occurred but from the record it prima facie reflects, it is a case of sheer negligence and being sewadars applicants alone cannot be held responsible for the incident.

13. Further, it appears, it was neither possible for applicants being sewadars to control lakhs of people nor they could stop the people to attend the programme.

14. Further, however, only applicant no. 1 is named in the FIR but during investigation number of other persons were also made accused including applicant nos. 2 and 3 and number of other co- accused have already been released on bail by the co-ordinate benches of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit dated 15.4.2025 and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicants are also at par with them.

15. Further, applicants are having no criminal history and in the present matter, they are in jail since July, 2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

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

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

19. Let the applicants-Dev Prakash Madhukar, Mukesh and Megh Singh, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. 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 applicants.

21. 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. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad