Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Afaq Zaki Khan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the role of the instant appellant is distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Vedram Teli and keeping in view the manner in which the offence has been committed, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is/was based on circumstantial evidence, as nobody has claimed to have seen the appellant or any other co-accused person assaulting the deceased. The statement of one prosecution witness, namely, Km. Renu Devi has been placed in order to show that the deceased was seen by this witness going with the appellant and, thereafter, the appellant is shown to have been arrested by the police and further shown to have confessed his guilt. However no recovery, etc. has been made either from his possession or on his pointing. Thus, there is only the statement of one prosecution witness, namely, Km. Renu Devi, who is related to the deceased, to have seen the appellant taking the deceased with him in the night of 28.08.2023 while the dead body of the deceased was admittedly recovered in the early hours of 29.08.2023. Appellant is in jail in this case since 30.08.2023. Criminal history of one case, in the considered opinion of this Court, has been adequately explained and also not having any bearing on the fate of the instant bail appeal and identically placed co- accused Vedram Teli has also been granted bail by this Court. Apart from the 'last seen', the confessional statement of the appellant and other co- accused persons have been placed against them which are recorded when the appellant and other co-accused persons were in the custody of the police and it is submitted with considerable force before this Court that these statements could not be proved against the appellant and other co- accused persons especially against the appellant as no recovery has been made in pursuance of such confessional statement. The presence of the appellant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

8. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the trial/special court is set-aside/quashed and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant- K.P. @ Krishnapal Singh involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail"

4. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused K.P. @ Krishnapal Singh as also the fact that the appellant has criminal history 16 cases and he has been languishing in jail accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi, in Bail Application No. 2211 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2023, under 3 CRLA No. 730 of 2025 Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Savayazpur, District Hardoi is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

5. Let appellant, Bhannu @ Bhanu Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant 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. September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Afaq Zaki Khan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the role of the instant appellant is distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Vedram Teli and keeping in view the manner in which the offence has been committed, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is/was based on circumstantial evidence, as nobody has claimed to have seen the appellant or any other co-accused person assaulting the deceased. The statement of one prosecution witness, namely, Km. Renu Devi has been placed in order to show that the deceased was seen by this witness going with the appellant and, thereafter, the appellant is shown to have been arrested by the police and further shown to have confessed his guilt. However no recovery, etc. has been made either from his possession or on his pointing. Thus, there is only the statement of one prosecution witness, namely, Km. Renu Devi, who is related to the deceased, to have seen the appellant taking the deceased with him in the night of 28.08.2023 while the dead body of the deceased was admittedly recovered in the early hours of 29.08.2023. Appellant is in jail in this case since 30.08.2023. Criminal history of one case, in the considered opinion of this Court, has been adequately explained and also not having any bearing on the fate of the instant bail appeal and identically placed co- accused Vedram Teli has also been granted bail by this Court. Apart from the 'last seen', the confessional statement of the appellant and other co- accused persons have been placed against them which are recorded when the appellant and other co-accused persons were in the custody of the police and it is submitted with considerable force before this Court that these statements could not be proved against the appellant and other co- accused persons especially against the appellant as no recovery has been made in pursuance of such confessional statement. The presence of the appellant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

8. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the trial/special court is set-aside/quashed and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant- K.P. @ Krishnapal Singh involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail"

4. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused K.P. @ Krishnapal Singh as also the fact that the appellant has criminal history 16 cases and he has been languishing in jail accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi, in Bail Application No. 2211 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2023, under 3 CRLA No. 730 of 2025 Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Savayazpur, District Hardoi is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

5. Let appellant, Bhannu @ Bhanu Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant 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. September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench