Rajan Singh v. Union Of India Thru. Superintendent Of Police Cbi Scb Lko

1. Heard Shri Naved Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in F.I.R. No.RC0532021S0010, under Sections 302, 330, 331, 218, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow, District - Lucknow.

3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it is a case of custodial death. The case of the prosecution itself indicates that the deceased died in police custody.

4. It is further submitted that indisputedly at the relevant point of time, the applicant was driving the vehicle of the head of the Special Operation Group (in short "SOG") namely Parva Kumar Singh who is also an accused in the case, and this fact can be deduced from Annexure No.SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20.03.2023, which is the typed copy of the G.D. Entry and the facts indicated therein have not been refuted by the side opposite/prosecution and in this view of the matter it is apparent that the applicant has not committed any offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that charge sheet indicates that prosecution would examine 93 witnesses to prove/establish its case including the documentary evidence which are 118 in number.

6. It is further submitted that till date examination of one witness has been concluded, which includes examination-in-chief and cross examination and examination-in-chief of another witness has been completed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the applicant is in jail since 23rd December, 2021 and accordingly the period of incarceration would come to around 03 years and 11 months. 2 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

8. Further submission is that, taking note of the aforesaid aspect of the case including the period of incarceration as also that total 93 witnesses would be examined and till date only two witnesses have been brought before the trial court by the prosecution as also the fact that conclusion of trial would take time, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. In support of its submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused.

10. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

11. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

12. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that co-accused namely Kamal Bihari Bind and Durgeshwar Mishra have already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 25.05.2023 and 17.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23717 of 2023 (Kamal Bihari Bind Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9138 of 2023 (Durgeshwar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police CBI/SCB Lko).

13. It is also stated that the applicant, who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.12.2021, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

14. Opposing the prayer for bail, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that bail of co-accused Ramkrit Yadav, Ajay Kumar Singh and Parva Kumar Singh have been rejected by the co-ordinate Benches of this court vide orders dated 17.08.2022, 17.03.2025 and 23.03.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10162 of 2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4145 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9782 of 2022 (Parva Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India) and there is evidence against the applicant in the conversation between Ajay Kumar and Parva Kumar Singh.

15. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no doubt the bail applications of some of the co-accused have been rejected but the case of the applicant stands on the different footing as the applicant at the relevant point of time was driving the vehicle of the Head of the SOG and based upon the conversation between the co-accused, which could not be relied upon during trial in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it would be difficult for the prosecution to establish its case against the applicant.

16. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, judgment relied upon, period of incarceration i.e. about 03 years and 11 months, the fact that there are 93 witness of prosecution and only 02 witnesses have been brought before the trial court and possibility of conclusion of trial and also that the applicant is having no criminal history and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

17. Let the applicant - Rajan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

18. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

19. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. November 4, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Naved Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in F.I.R. No.RC0532021S0010, under Sections 302, 330, 331, 218, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station - CBI/SCB, Lucknow, District - Lucknow.

3. While pressing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it is a case of custodial death. The case of the prosecution itself indicates that the deceased died in police custody.

4. It is further submitted that indisputedly at the relevant point of time, the applicant was driving the vehicle of the head of the Special Operation Group (in short "SOG") namely Parva Kumar Singh who is also an accused in the case, and this fact can be deduced from Annexure No.SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20.03.2023, which is the typed copy of the G.D. Entry and the facts indicated therein have not been refuted by the side opposite/prosecution and in this view of the matter it is apparent that the applicant has not committed any offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that charge sheet indicates that prosecution would examine 93 witnesses to prove/establish its case including the documentary evidence which are 118 in number.

6. It is further submitted that till date examination of one witness has been concluded, which includes examination-in-chief and cross examination and examination-in-chief of another witness has been completed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the applicant is in jail since 23rd December, 2021 and accordingly the period of incarceration would come to around 03 years and 11 months. 2 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

8. Further submission is that, taking note of the aforesaid aspect of the case including the period of incarceration as also that total 93 witnesses would be examined and till date only two witnesses have been brought before the trial court by the prosecution as also the fact that conclusion of trial would take time, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. In support of its submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused.

10. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

11. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

12. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that co-accused namely Kamal Bihari Bind and Durgeshwar Mishra have already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 25.05.2023 and 17.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23717 of 2023 (Kamal Bihari Bind Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9138 of 2023 (Durgeshwar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police CBI/SCB Lko).

13. It is also stated that the applicant, who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.12.2021, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

14. Opposing the prayer for bail, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that bail of co-accused Ramkrit Yadav, Ajay Kumar Singh and Parva Kumar Singh have been rejected by the co-ordinate Benches of this court vide orders dated 17.08.2022, 17.03.2025 and 23.03.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10162 of 2022 (Ramkrit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4145 of 2023 (Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9782 of 2022 (Parva Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India) and there is evidence against the applicant in the conversation between Ajay Kumar and Parva Kumar Singh.

15. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no doubt the bail applications of some of the co-accused have been rejected but the case of the applicant stands on the different footing as the applicant at the relevant point of time was driving the vehicle of the Head of the SOG and based upon the conversation between the co-accused, which could not be relied upon during trial in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it would be difficult for the prosecution to establish its case against the applicant.

16. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, judgment relied upon, period of incarceration i.e. about 03 years and 11 months, the fact that there are 93 witness of prosecution and only 02 witnesses have been brought before the trial court and possibility of conclusion of trial and also that the applicant is having no criminal history and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

17. Let the applicant - Rajan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member, of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4 BAIL No. 1003 of 2023

18. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

19. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. November 4, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench