High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mohd. Shahid Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This is a second bail application, as first bail application bearing No.9109 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar vide order dated 13.10.2022. While rejecting the first bail application, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year. The bail order dated 13.10.2022 reads as under: "1. Heard Mr. M.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.307 of 2019, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.

3. Accused-applicant is the real brother of the deceased. As per the allegations in the FIR, accused-applicant fired at the deceased, as a result thereof he fell down and, thereafter, he was assaulted by bricks and stones etc.

4. Post-mortem report would suggest the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- "1. Lacerated wound 9.0 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on Rt. Occipital region of skull 10 cm behind from Rt. Ear.

2. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on occipital region of skull 0.3 cm above and lateral from injury no1.

3. Lacerated wound 0.9 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on occipital protulrance.

4. Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on lateral aspect of Rt. Arm 18 cm above from Rt. Elbow joint.

5. Firearm wound of entry 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm x cvity deep present on Rt. auxiliary line on Rt. Side margin are inverted irregular, blackening and tattooing present on wound entry 15 cm x 10 cm.

6. Contusion 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm present on lateral aspect of Rt. Side of chest 0.5 cm below Rt. Armpit under line 3rsd to 5th rib fractured.

7. lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present on Lt. side on chest 0.7 cm below Lt. Arm under line 9th rib fractured.

8. lacerated wound of entry 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep present on lateral aspect of Lt. Thigh 0.6 cm below Lt. Iliac crest margin are inverted and irregular.

9. Firearm wound of exit 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep, 30 cm above it. Knee joint margins are inverted and irregular. Injury nos.8 and 9 communicated each other.?

5. Cause of death was due to ante-mortem firearm injuries. Accused-applicant has criminal antecedents for offences under Sections 392 and 307 IPC.

6. Looking at the relationship between the accused-applicant and the deceased, and the gruesome murder of the deceased in a ghastly manner in a broad daylight, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage.

7. Bail application is accordingly rejected.

8. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year.

9. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court forthwith for compliance."

3. The present applicant is in jail since 27.05.2019 in Case Crime No.307 of 2019 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Sitapur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that about three years have lapsed since 13.10.2022, but trial has not been concluded and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined as this fact has been verified from the trial status report dated 02.07.2025 submitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel has further submitted that all fact/relevant witnesses have been examined. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he shall not address the Court on the merit of the case inasmuch as merit of the case has already been addressed to the Court while arguing the first bail application. He would press this bail application only on the ground of long incarceration in jail i.e more than 6 years and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Besides, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the present applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is a main accused and deceased was having nine serious anti morterm injuries, however, both the counsels for opposite parties have stated that they have not bearing on pace of the trial.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the period of incarceration in jail i.e more than 6 years and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future inasmuch as out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses, considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and considering the undertaking that applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let applicant- (Sanne Alias Safi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

10. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, fixing short date, if possible, on day to day basis and if any of the parties does not cooperate in the trial court proceedings properly, any appropriate coercive steps may be taken by the trial court strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mohd. Shahid Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This is a second bail application, as first bail application bearing No.9109 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar vide order dated 13.10.2022. While rejecting the first bail application, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year. The bail order dated 13.10.2022 reads as under: "1. Heard Mr. M.V.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.307 of 2019, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.

3. Accused-applicant is the real brother of the deceased. As per the allegations in the FIR, accused-applicant fired at the deceased, as a result thereof he fell down and, thereafter, he was assaulted by bricks and stones etc.

4. Post-mortem report would suggest the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- "1. Lacerated wound 9.0 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on Rt. Occipital region of skull 10 cm behind from Rt. Ear.

2. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on occipital region of skull 0.3 cm above and lateral from injury no1.

3. Lacerated wound 0.9 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on occipital protulrance.

4. Lacerated wound 0.2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on lateral aspect of Rt. Arm 18 cm above from Rt. Elbow joint.

5. Firearm wound of entry 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm x cvity deep present on Rt. auxiliary line on Rt. Side margin are inverted irregular, blackening and tattooing present on wound entry 15 cm x 10 cm.

6. Contusion 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm present on lateral aspect of Rt. Side of chest 0.5 cm below Rt. Armpit under line 3rsd to 5th rib fractured.

7. lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present on Lt. side on chest 0.7 cm below Lt. Arm under line 9th rib fractured.

8. lacerated wound of entry 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep present on lateral aspect of Lt. Thigh 0.6 cm below Lt. Iliac crest margin are inverted and irregular.

9. Firearm wound of exit 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep, 30 cm above it. Knee joint margins are inverted and irregular. Injury nos.8 and 9 communicated each other.?

5. Cause of death was due to ante-mortem firearm injuries. Accused-applicant has criminal antecedents for offences under Sections 392 and 307 IPC.

6. Looking at the relationship between the accused-applicant and the deceased, and the gruesome murder of the deceased in a ghastly manner in a broad daylight, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage.

7. Bail application is accordingly rejected.

8. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year.

9. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court forthwith for compliance."

3. The present applicant is in jail since 27.05.2019 in Case Crime No.307 of 2019 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 25(1-B) Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Sitapur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that about three years have lapsed since 13.10.2022, but trial has not been concluded and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined as this fact has been verified from the trial status report dated 02.07.2025 submitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel has further submitted that all fact/relevant witnesses have been examined. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he shall not address the Court on the merit of the case inasmuch as merit of the case has already been addressed to the Court while arguing the first bail application. He would press this bail application only on the ground of long incarceration in jail i.e more than 6 years and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Besides, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the present applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is a main accused and deceased was having nine serious anti morterm injuries, however, both the counsels for opposite parties have stated that they have not bearing on pace of the trial.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the period of incarceration in jail i.e more than 6 years and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future inasmuch as out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses, considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and considering the undertaking that applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let applicant- (Sanne Alias Safi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

10. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, fixing short date, if possible, on day to day basis and if any of the parties does not cooperate in the trial court proceedings properly, any appropriate coercive steps may be taken by the trial court strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench