Rajendra Lodh v. State of U.P. While rejecting the bail application of the co

1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 23.09.2016 in FIR/Case Crime No.266 of 2016, under Sections 302, 394 & 411 of IPC, Police Station – Qasimpur, District – Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which has been lodged against unknown person but during the course of investigation, complicity of the present applicant has been surfaced. Though material or evidence on account of which the present applicant has been implicated is not sufficient to implicate him but the aforesaid fact may be ascertained during the course of the trial.

4. Dr. Pooja Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.9 of the bail application, which is a bail rejection order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in Bail No.10568 of 2019, Rajendra Lodh Vs. State of U.P. While rejecting the bail application of the co-accused Rajendra Lodh, this Court directed the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year. Dr. Pooja Singh has submitted that about four years' period has passed after the order dated 26.07.2021 but the trial has not been concluded. Out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. The aforesaid submission of Dr. Pooja Singh is being verified from the current status report dated 23.01.2025 provided by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, Dr. Pooja Singh has stated that since only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined as on today and looking into the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near further, therefore, in view of the dictums of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), the present applicant may be enlarged on bail considering his total period of incarceration in jail i.e. about 8 years and 9 months. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application but has submitted that he is unable to comment on the pace of trial inasmuch as that fact is beyond his control.

6. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the bail application of co-accused Rajendra Lodh to conclude the trial within a period of one year but about four years' period has passed after the order dated 26.07.2021, the trial has not been concluded till date; out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about 8 years and 9 months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let applicant- Maan Singh 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 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 his 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/ 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 the 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 23.09.2016 in FIR/Case Crime No.266 of 2016, under Sections 302, 394 & 411 of IPC, Police Station – Qasimpur, District – Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which has been lodged against unknown person but during the course of investigation, complicity of the present applicant has been surfaced. Though material or evidence on account of which the present applicant has been implicated is not sufficient to implicate him but the aforesaid fact may be ascertained during the course of the trial.

4. Dr. Pooja Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.9 of the bail application, which is a bail rejection order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in Bail No.10568 of 2019, Rajendra Lodh Vs. State of U.P. While rejecting the bail application of the co-accused Rajendra Lodh, this Court directed the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year. Dr. Pooja Singh has submitted that about four years' period has passed after the order dated 26.07.2021 but the trial has not been concluded. Out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. The aforesaid submission of Dr. Pooja Singh is being verified from the current status report dated 23.01.2025 provided by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, Dr. Pooja Singh has stated that since only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined as on today and looking into the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near further, therefore, in view of the dictums of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), the present applicant may be enlarged on bail considering his total period of incarceration in jail i.e. about 8 years and 9 months. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application but has submitted that he is unable to comment on the pace of trial inasmuch as that fact is beyond his control.

6. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the bail application of co-accused Rajendra Lodh to conclude the trial within a period of one year but about four years' period has passed after the order dated 26.07.2021, the trial has not been concluded till date; out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about 8 years and 9 months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let applicant- Maan Singh 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 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 his 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/ 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 the 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench