Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40692 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3102 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh @ Badakkey Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Singh Chauhan,Bal Keshwar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Shukla,Avnish Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Shri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This is a second bail application. First bail application bearing Bail No.11147 of 2023 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan. vide order dated 26.10.2023. While rejecting the first bail application on 26.10.2023 this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year but the trial has not been concluded till date.The order dated 26.10.2023 reads as under: "1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Jitendra Singh Alias Badakkey for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 0123 of 2023, under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi, during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Amit Shukla, who was not the eye witness of the incident and he on the basis of the information provided by some other persons has lodged the F.I.R. and the name of the applicant has been mentioned in the F.I.R. only on account of 'hearsay evidence'. 5. It is further submitted that the statement of the only injured witness, namely, Santosh was recorded by the investigating officer and he has neither named applicant nor has assigned any role to him in the incident, which primafacie reflects that the applicant has been falsely involved in this case. 6. It is also submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the same appears to have been based on the confessional statement of the applicant, wherein his involvement is shown to the extent that he has helped or facilitated the other accused persons to commit crime. 7. It is also submitted that the applicant is shown to be involved in three other criminal cases, however, the same are pertaining to minor penal offences and in all these three cases the applicant has been granted bail by competent criminal Courts. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 04.04.2023. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it is a case where two persons, namely, Ramakant and Amit Shukla were done to death and one injured Santosh has sustained fatal injuries and apart from the injured Santosh, there are many other witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer and they have stated that applicant was one of the accused person who was assaulting the deceased persons and, thus, having regard to the fact that the matter is pertaining to 'double murder', the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the prosecution case, as is evident from the record is to the tune that on 22.03.2023 deceased persons Amit Shukla and Ramakant were returning to their home and at 3:30 pm. when they arrived at a road situated near Gotiya Village and Canal Road, they were intercepted by the accused persons named in the F.I.R. and were assaulted by 'banka, hammer and hockeys'. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that the informant and Pradeep Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Archit Kumar and Shivanshu were going to Shahabad in connection with the engagement of their grand-daughter and they have witnessed the incident and also challenged the accused persons, on which, they (accused persons) had left the scene after intimidating them. Both injured persons, namely, Ramakant and Amit Shukla succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 10. The postmortem report of the deceased persons would reveal that deceased Ramakant has sustained 06 injuries of the nature of 'lacerated wound, stab wounds and abrasions' on different parts of his body and his death is shown to have been caused due to 'coma' as a result of 'antemortem head injuries'. Similarly the postmortem report of injured- deceased Amit Shukla would reveal that he has sustained as many as 07 injuries of the nature of incised wounds and abrasions on different parts of his body and his cause of death has been ascertained as 'coma' due to 'antemortem head injuries'. The other injured Santosh is also shown to have sustained injuries. During the course of investigation, there is no doubt that the injured Santosh in his statement has not alleged any imputation against the applicant, however, there are witnesses, namely, Prdeep Shukla, Anurag Shukla, Archit Kumar and Shivanshu, who claimed to have seen the occurrence and they in one voice has alleged the role of assault to the instant applicant. 11. Thus, having regard to the allegations levelled against the applicant, in the statement of the eye witnesses, who have claimed to have seen the incident and having regard to the fact that it is a case where two persons are stated to have been done to death by the concerted efforts of the applicant and other accused persons, I do not find any good ground to released the applicant on bail. In result, the bail application of the applicant- Jitendra Singh Alias Badakkey is hereby rejected. 12. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial with utmost expedition without granting soft adjournments to the either party and if all the witnesses of fact are not examined or trial is not concluded within one year from placing a copy of this order before trial Court, whichever is earlier, the applicant may approach this Court again for renewal of his plea of bail. 13. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the trial Court through the Sessions Judge concerned for strict compliance. 14. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case." 3. The present applicant is in jail since 04.04.2023 in Case Crime No.0123 of 2023 under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Majhila, District- Hardoi. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the bail orders whereby co-accused persons Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh, Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan, Kallu Singh, Suraj Singh, Neeraj Singh, Ranveer Pratap Singh @ Raja Babu, Raghav Singh, Shashivendra Singh @ Chhotake Singh and Purushottam have been granted bail vide orders dated 21.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 18.06.2025, 13.06.2025, 18.06.2025 & 15.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.1641/2025, 2000/2025, 5475/2025, 5371/2025, 5474/2025, 2458/2025, 5981/2024 & 13211/2024 and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that out of total 12 accused persons against whom the chargesheet has been filed, nine accused persons have been granted bail and role of the present applicant is similar to those co-accused persons, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of pairity. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of present applicant in para- 22 of the bail application.. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Besides, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 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), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 6. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application with vehemence saying that the bail of the co-accused Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh was granted by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 for the reasons that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court rejecting the first bail application of that accused person to conclude the trial within one year, the trial could not be concluded within time so stipulated. However, after the aforesaid order having been passed, the trial court expedited the proceedings and except the formal witness, all relevant/fact witnesses have been examined. Therefore, Sri Shukla has further submitted that this is a case of double murder and trial court is trying its level best to conclude the trial with expedition inasmuch as the prosecution is cooperating in the trial but the defence is filing application so far as to delay the trial. 7. Learned AGA has also opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that this is a case of double murder and during the course of investigation culpability of the present applicant has been found, so if, he enlarged on bail, he may influence the trial. 8. On being asked from learned counsel for the opposite parties as to whether all relevant/fact witness have been examined, learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that those witnesses have been examined and the evidence of formal witnesses is being recorded. 9. 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 first bail application on 26.10.2023 to conclude the trial within a period of one year, more than one year's period has passed, the trial has not been concluded till date; all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined and still some prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant and considering the undertaking that appliant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings, 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. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant- (Jitendra Singh @ Badakkey 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 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. 11. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, fixing short date, if possible, on day to day basis and if any of the parties does not cooperate in the trial court proceedings properly, any appropriate coercive steps may be taken by the trial court strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench