Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72757 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39793 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghav Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghav Arora, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinay Tyagi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 465 of 2021, under Sections 201, 302, 364 IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially an FIR was lodged on 8.1.2016 with regard to the incident dated 24.4.2015 regarding the missing brother of the informant, under Section 364 IPC as Case Crime No.11 of 2016. Final report was submitted by the police in the aforesaid FIR by means of Final Report No.276 of 2016 on 31.12.2016. Thereafter, notices are being issued to other side on the aforesaid final report, but it is still under consideration. However, in the meantime, another FIR dated 27.10.2021 was lodged under Sections 302/201 IPC against the applicant co-accused, Monu Tyagi and unknown accused. It is mentioned in the subsequent FIR of 2021 that missing report regarding missing brother of the informant was lodged in 2016, but no action was taken thereon. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that recital in the FIR is incorrect as clear from the final report submitted earlier. The applicant has criminal history of 42 cases, which is the reason of his false implication in this case. In the present case, even charges have not been framed. The applicant is in jail since 4.6.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2020 (11) Supreme Court Cases, 648 and has submitted that merely because of long criminal history, bail cannot be denied to the applicant. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2010)2 SCC 254 and has submitted that it is for the trial court to decide that both FIRs are the same and relate to the same incident in respect of same occurrence. If the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed and vice versa. He has submitted that prima facie both the FIRs appear to be same. Therefore, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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. (v) 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 him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad