High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.5.2024 in F.I.R. No. 172 of 2024 u/s 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 27.5.2024, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.5.2024 without explaining the delay of two days. In the impugned F.I.R. allegation has been levelled against six known persons and one unknown person. General allegations have been levelled against the present applicant as no specific allegation has been levelled against him. The present applicant is having no intention or motive to kill the deceased. There is no eye witness, however, there is last seen evidence but that last seen evidence does not suggest clearly the culpability of the present applicant in the present case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention towards the bail order dated 23.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12074 of 2024 whereby this Court granted bail to the co-accused person. The role of the present applicant is more or less identical with co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, therefore, on the basis of principle of parity the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Ramakar Shukla have opposed the bail application. Sri Shukla has stated that the P.W.-2, the mother of the deceased has been cross- examined but the defense is not cross-examining her and the adjournment is being sought for one reason or the another, therefore, the direction may be issued to the applicant to instruct his Advocate to cross-examine the P.W.-2.

7. On that learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the P.W.-2 shall be cross-examined at the earliest and no adjournment shall be taken by the defense.

8. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 27.5.2024, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.5.2024 without explaining the delay of two days, in the F.I.R. allegation has been levelled against six known persons and one unknown person, general allegations have been levelled against the present applicant as no specific allegation has been levelled against him, applicant is having no intention or motive to kill the deceased, there is no eye witness, however, there is last seen evidence but that last seen evidence does not suggest clearly the culpability of the present applicant in the present case, present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, co-accused person namely, Dharmendra Kumar, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12074 of 2024, therefore, along with other grounds also on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

9. Bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Pramod Kumar @ Pappu Harijan, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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.may be issued and if 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

11. Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition invoking section 309 Cr.P.C. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co- operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest. OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.7.2025/Om

1. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.5.2024 in F.I.R. No. 172 of 2024 u/s 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 27.5.2024, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.5.2024 without explaining the delay of two days. In the impugned F.I.R. allegation has been levelled against six known persons and one unknown person. General allegations have been levelled against the present applicant as no specific allegation has been levelled against him. The present applicant is having no intention or motive to kill the deceased. There is no eye witness, however, there is last seen evidence but that last seen evidence does not suggest clearly the culpability of the present applicant in the present case. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention towards the bail order dated 23.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12074 of 2024 whereby this Court granted bail to the co-accused person. The role of the present applicant is more or less identical with co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, therefore, on the basis of principle of parity the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Ramakar Shukla have opposed the bail application. Sri Shukla has stated that the P.W.-2, the mother of the deceased has been cross- examined but the defense is not cross-examining her and the adjournment is being sought for one reason or the another, therefore, the direction may be issued to the applicant to instruct his Advocate to cross-examine the P.W.-2.

7. On that learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the P.W.-2 shall be cross-examined at the earliest and no adjournment shall be taken by the defense.

8. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that in the F.I.R. the date of incident has been indicated as 27.5.2024, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.5.2024 without explaining the delay of two days, in the F.I.R. allegation has been levelled against six known persons and one unknown person, general allegations have been levelled against the present applicant as no specific allegation has been levelled against him, applicant is having no intention or motive to kill the deceased, there is no eye witness, however, there is last seen evidence but that last seen evidence does not suggest clearly the culpability of the present applicant in the present case, present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, co-accused person namely, Dharmendra Kumar, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12074 of 2024, therefore, along with other grounds also on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

9. Bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Pramod Kumar @ Pappu Harijan, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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.may be issued and if 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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 her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

11. Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition invoking section 309 Cr.P.C. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co- operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest. OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.7.2025/Om