High Court · 2025

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that there is general role assigned to all the accused persons including the present applicant to assault the injured, though in the first information report, there is no such fact that the injured had identified anyone of the accused persons. He next added that later on,the story was improved by the injured person in his statement and it was stated that the present applicant including one co-accused namely, Ravindra Pratap Singh @ Mukku Singh, had mufÒed their faces and during defmufÒed, the same was revealed and he identified allegedly them, though the fact is otherwise that P.W.-1, who is son of the injured, has stated that he got registered the first information report after conversations with his father and thereafter, he also met his father,but it was never intimated/informed him that his father ever identified the present applicant and the co- accused,Ravindra Pratap Singh. He submits that this fact demolishes the story of the prosecution with respect to the fact that the case of the present applicant and Ravindra Pratap Singh, is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons. He submits that the role of all the accused persons are the same as no one could identify the accused persons. He next submits that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for assaulting the injured and other than the two accused persons, all the accused persons have been enlarged on bail. He also submits that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 14 of the bail application and the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 04-08-2023. He also submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would threaten the witnesses or would tamper the witnesses. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant would not abscond from the trial proceedings and would always remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court. He further submits that the applicant will not jump the conditions of the bail and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the applicant is not named in the first information report, but, he was identified by the injured and this is the strong evidence against him. He submits that the other co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, could not be identified as they were mufÒed and therefore, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the other co- accused persons. He submits that there is several criminal history of the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statement of the informant before the trial court as P.W.-1, who is the son of the victim, is evident that the injured could not identify the present applicant including the other co-accused namely Ravindra Pratap Singh. Further while registering the first information report, there was also talk with the injured person and even at that very point of time, he did not disclose the name of the applicant. This court has also taken note of the fact that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons and the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Further only two witnesses have been examined yet and it seems that the conclusion of trial would take considerable period of time coupled with the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history in the bail application and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Manoj Yadav, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing or otherwise during the the witnesses, investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that there is general role assigned to all the accused persons including the present applicant to assault the injured, though in the first information report, there is no such fact that the injured had identified anyone of the accused persons. He next added that later on,the story was improved by the injured person in his statement and it was stated that the present applicant including one co-accused namely, Ravindra Pratap Singh @ Mukku Singh, had mufÒed their faces and during defmufÒed, the same was revealed and he identified allegedly them, though the fact is otherwise that P.W.-1, who is son of the injured, has stated that he got registered the first information report after conversations with his father and thereafter, he also met his father,but it was never intimated/informed him that his father ever identified the present applicant and the co- accused,Ravindra Pratap Singh. He submits that this fact demolishes the story of the prosecution with respect to the fact that the case of the present applicant and Ravindra Pratap Singh, is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons. He submits that the role of all the accused persons are the same as no one could identify the accused persons. He next submits that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for assaulting the injured and other than the two accused persons, all the accused persons have been enlarged on bail. He also submits that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 14 of the bail application and the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 04-08-2023. He also submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would threaten the witnesses or would tamper the witnesses. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant would not abscond from the trial proceedings and would always remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court. He further submits that the applicant will not jump the conditions of the bail and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the applicant is not named in the first information report, but, he was identified by the injured and this is the strong evidence against him. He submits that the other co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, could not be identified as they were mufÒed and therefore, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the other co- accused persons. He submits that there is several criminal history of the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statement of the informant before the trial court as P.W.-1, who is the son of the victim, is evident that the injured could not identify the present applicant including the other co-accused namely Ravindra Pratap Singh. Further while registering the first information report, there was also talk with the injured person and even at that very point of time, he did not disclose the name of the applicant. This court has also taken note of the fact that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons and the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Further only two witnesses have been examined yet and it seems that the conclusion of trial would take considerable period of time coupled with the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history in the bail application and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Manoj Yadav, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing or otherwise during the the witnesses, investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench