High Court · 2025

learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application which has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.897 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow.

4. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.4820 of 2023 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2023. The operative part of the order is extracted below:- "15. The law with regard to the cases based on circumstantial evidence is well-settled. The circumstances being relied on must be of conclusive nature. They must form a chain so strong not to leave any room for any other person to come in between and commit the offence and when the case is based on theory of 'last seen', there must be close proximity in the time, death and place and when the initial facts have been proved by the prosecution, the accused by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is obliged to explain the special facts in his knowledge i.e. in this case as to when and where he had parted from the deceased. The explanation given by the applicant stating about time and place of parting from deceased has not been found truthful and there are other circumstances also in this case including of motive which points primafacie towards the applicant alone and are not pointing anywhere elsewhere.

16. Thus, for the reasons given herein-above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail, at this stage.

17. Resultantly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Arpit Trivedi is rejected.

18. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without providing any soft adjournments to the parties."

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2023. He submits that while rejecting the first bail application, a specific direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without providing any soft adjournment to the parties thus, the defence as well as the prosecution both were directed to assist in conclusion of trial without hampering the speed of the trial. It is submitted that subsequent to the order dated 12.10.2023, 56 dates have been fixed by the trial court in the trial yet only on 11 dates the testimony of the witnesses have been recorded. Out of 56 dates fixed before the trial court in the intervening period since the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, the applicant witness has appeared on 12 dates out of which on 11 dates examination and cross-examination of the witnesses have been conducted and only one adjournment has been sought on behalf of the applicant. On rest of the dates matter was adjourned on account of the prosecution thus, it is the prosecution who has hampered the trial. It is submitted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have been examined which include three witnesses of fact. Applicant has no criminal history. Case is of circumstantial evidence. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the evidence. Applicant is in jail since

11.02.2023.

6. It is lastly submitted that after rejection of the first bail, P.W.5 was examined who is Dr. Santosh Singh who conducted the post mortem. He has stated that deceased died due to asphyxia on account of ante mortem drowning. Cause of death is not homicidal in nature.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

8. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2023, statement of P.W.5, all the fact witnesses have been examined, applicant has no criminal history, non- cooperation of the prosecution in concluding the trial although a direction was issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application so also the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Arpit Trivedi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application which has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.897 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow.

4. The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.4820 of 2023 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2023. The operative part of the order is extracted below:- "15. The law with regard to the cases based on circumstantial evidence is well-settled. The circumstances being relied on must be of conclusive nature. They must form a chain so strong not to leave any room for any other person to come in between and commit the offence and when the case is based on theory of 'last seen', there must be close proximity in the time, death and place and when the initial facts have been proved by the prosecution, the accused by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is obliged to explain the special facts in his knowledge i.e. in this case as to when and where he had parted from the deceased. The explanation given by the applicant stating about time and place of parting from deceased has not been found truthful and there are other circumstances also in this case including of motive which points primafacie towards the applicant alone and are not pointing anywhere elsewhere.

16. Thus, for the reasons given herein-above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail, at this stage.

17. Resultantly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Arpit Trivedi is rejected.

18. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without providing any soft adjournments to the parties."

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2023. He submits that while rejecting the first bail application, a specific direction was issued to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without providing any soft adjournment to the parties thus, the defence as well as the prosecution both were directed to assist in conclusion of trial without hampering the speed of the trial. It is submitted that subsequent to the order dated 12.10.2023, 56 dates have been fixed by the trial court in the trial yet only on 11 dates the testimony of the witnesses have been recorded. Out of 56 dates fixed before the trial court in the intervening period since the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, the applicant witness has appeared on 12 dates out of which on 11 dates examination and cross-examination of the witnesses have been conducted and only one adjournment has been sought on behalf of the applicant. On rest of the dates matter was adjourned on account of the prosecution thus, it is the prosecution who has hampered the trial. It is submitted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have been examined which include three witnesses of fact. Applicant has no criminal history. Case is of circumstantial evidence. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the evidence. Applicant is in jail since

11.02.2023.

6. It is lastly submitted that after rejection of the first bail, P.W.5 was examined who is Dr. Santosh Singh who conducted the post mortem. He has stated that deceased died due to asphyxia on account of ante mortem drowning. Cause of death is not homicidal in nature.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

8. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2023, statement of P.W.5, all the fact witnesses have been examined, applicant has no criminal history, non- cooperation of the prosecution in concluding the trial although a direction was issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application so also the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Arpit Trivedi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench