Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46571 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5807 of 2023 Applicant :- Munendra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Pratap Singh,Devesh Singh,Raj Kumar Singh,Rajat Pratap Singh,Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Singh,Ajeet Pratap Singh,Krishna Kumar Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that, after rejection of the first bail application by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14957 of 2021, the co- accused Vijay Singh, who was also assigned the role of assault, has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4858 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. 4. It is also submitted on behalf of the applicant that while granting bail to co- accused Vijay Singh, the rejection order of the applicant was taken note of by the Co-ordinate Bench. He submits that bail to the co-accused was granted on account of delay in trial. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not a case of parity. The occurrence is of 14.11.2020. The applicant was arrested on 08.06.2021. He absconded. Proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was issued. F.I.R. was lodged under Section 174-A I.P.C., in which the accused-applicant has been charge-sheeted. 6. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is at flight risk. It is not safe to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has submitted that while rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 13.04.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench had provided that the trial court should make every endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The relevant part of the order is extracted below: "5. Considering the heinousness of the offence, evidence available on record against the accused-applicant and societal impact, this Court does not find it a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. Therefore, the prayer for bail is hereby refused and the application is rejected. However, the trial Court should make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is produced." 8. Learned A.G.A. further submits that nowhere in the bail application or otherwise has it been stated by the applicant as to when the certified copy of the order was produced before the trial court. Therefore, on this ground, they cannot seek bail. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant has been absconding and has not been cooperating with the trial, and therefore also is not entitled to be granted bail. He further submits that to take the benefit of delay in trial, the accused-applicant has to demonstrate that the delay is not on account of the accused or due to non-cooperation on his part. Nothing of the sort has either been pleaded or argued, nor is anything available on record. 9. Rebutting the above arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in paragraph 5 of the Rejoinder Affidavit he has pleaded his right of defence, so he gave several applications to the higher authorities for a Narco test or for a CBI inquiry; however, due to the influence of the complainant, he could not succeed. 10. From perusal of postmortem report, the deceased Suneel Singh had received the following ante-mortem injuries:- "1. Firearm wound of entry – 2 cm × 1.5 cm × abdominal cavity deep, present on Rt side of the abdomen, 17 cm below Rt nipple, 15 cm above umbilicus at 10 o'clock position; margins inverted, irregular; collar of abrasion ring present; blackening present around the wound. 2. Contusion 3 cm × 2 cm present on the L side of the forehead, 6 cm above the L eyebrow." 11. Perusal of the report of the learned Sessions Judge dated 24.10.2025 shows that four prosecution witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined at length. The statement of P.W.1 has been recorded over several dates, totalling 39 pages, whereas the statement of P.W.2 has been recorded over 36 pages on multiple dates. In the bail application, it is not the case of the applicant that he is not responsible for the delay in trial. There is no pleading to the effect that the accused is not responsible for the delay in trial. 12. Thus, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents appear to carry force. This is a case of double murder, that too in broad daylight. The accused has been assigned the role of firing, coupled with the fact that he remained absconding, and proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were issued. F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C. was also registered, in which he has been charge-sheeted. Whereas, in the case of co-accused Vijay Singh, there was no such allegation by the prosecution regarding non-cooperation. Thus, no case of parity is made out. 13. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, its impact on society, and the conduct of the accused as pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A., this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench