High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the complainant, same is taken on record.

2. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed supplementary affidavit, same is taken on record. In the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in para-2 thereof.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Banwari Mishra) is languishing in jail since 10.01.2020 in Case Crime No.06 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Hardi, District- Bahraich.

4. This is second bail application as the first bail application has been rejected on 13.10.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.4718 of 2020 (Annexure-1). The order dated 13.10.2022 reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Mr. Umang Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused- applicant seeks bail in FIR No.06 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC lodged at Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich.

3. It is submitted that this Court vide detailed order dated 28.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5145 of 2020 has already refused the bail plea of co-accused Shivraj and case of the present accused-applicant rests on similar footing.

4. Considering the above, the bail plea of the accused-applicant is also refused and the application is rejected."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first bail of the present applicant has been rejected only on the ground that the bail of the co-accused Shivraj has been rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 20.03.2022 inasmuch as the separate merit of the bail application of the present applicant was not considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 13.10.2022.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has informed that the aforesaid co-accused Shivraj has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.05.2025, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of pairity. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order of the Apex Court dated 24.01.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18346/202; Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the Apex Court granted bail to co- accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi. The bail order dated 24.01.2025 reads as under: "1. This is a petition seeking bail.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the petition.

3. Taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and that the trial has just commenced and is not likely to conclude in the near future, we are inclined to allow the petition.

4. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No.006/2020 registered with P.S. Hardi, District Bahraich, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." (Criminal) Nos.004715/2005,

7. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has also stated that co-accused Uttam Vijay, Praveen and Shivraj had filed Special Leave Petition 005781/2025, 005780/2025 & 006573/2025, who have been granted bail by the Apex Court by a common order dated 22.05.2025 (supra) only on the ground that the co-accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi has been granted bail by the Apex Court. Therefore, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has stated that five co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Apex Court only considering the period of incarceration in jail and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. Sri Singh has further stated that there are total 18 prosecution witnesses, out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the aforesaid ground may be taken a fresh ground to grant bail to the present applicant, besides the ground that five co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Apex Court. If the present applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the aforesaid bail application but he did not dispute the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Uttam, Vijay, Praveen and Shivraj had filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.004715/2005, 005781/2025, 005780/2025 & 006573/2025, who have granted bail by the Apex Court by a common order dated 22.05.2025 (supra) only on the ground that the co- accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi has been granted bail by the Apex Court, considering the period of incarceration in jail and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future; there are total 18 prosecution witnesses out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Banwari Mishra) 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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the complainant, same is taken on record.

2. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed supplementary affidavit, same is taken on record. In the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in para-2 thereof.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Banwari Mishra) is languishing in jail since 10.01.2020 in Case Crime No.06 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Hardi, District- Bahraich.

4. This is second bail application as the first bail application has been rejected on 13.10.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.4718 of 2020 (Annexure-1). The order dated 13.10.2022 reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Mr. Umang Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused- applicant seeks bail in FIR No.06 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC lodged at Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich.

3. It is submitted that this Court vide detailed order dated 28.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5145 of 2020 has already refused the bail plea of co-accused Shivraj and case of the present accused-applicant rests on similar footing.

4. Considering the above, the bail plea of the accused-applicant is also refused and the application is rejected."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first bail of the present applicant has been rejected only on the ground that the bail of the co-accused Shivraj has been rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 20.03.2022 inasmuch as the separate merit of the bail application of the present applicant was not considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 13.10.2022.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has informed that the aforesaid co-accused Shivraj has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.05.2025, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of pairity. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order of the Apex Court dated 24.01.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18346/202; Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the Apex Court granted bail to co- accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi. The bail order dated 24.01.2025 reads as under: "1. This is a petition seeking bail.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the petition.

3. Taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and that the trial has just commenced and is not likely to conclude in the near future, we are inclined to allow the petition.

4. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No.006/2020 registered with P.S. Hardi, District Bahraich, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." (Criminal) Nos.004715/2005,

7. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has also stated that co-accused Uttam Vijay, Praveen and Shivraj had filed Special Leave Petition 005781/2025, 005780/2025 & 006573/2025, who have been granted bail by the Apex Court by a common order dated 22.05.2025 (supra) only on the ground that the co-accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi has been granted bail by the Apex Court. Therefore, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh has stated that five co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Apex Court only considering the period of incarceration in jail and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. Sri Singh has further stated that there are total 18 prosecution witnesses, out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the aforesaid ground may be taken a fresh ground to grant bail to the present applicant, besides the ground that five co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Apex Court. If the present applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the aforesaid bail application but he did not dispute the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Uttam, Vijay, Praveen and Shivraj had filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.004715/2005, 005781/2025, 005780/2025 & 006573/2025, who have granted bail by the Apex Court by a common order dated 22.05.2025 (supra) only on the ground that the co- accused Amrish @ Hari Shankar Dwivedi has been granted bail by the Apex Court, considering the period of incarceration in jail and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future; there are total 18 prosecution witnesses out of them only three prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant (Banwari Mishra) 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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench