Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12303 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11586 of 2023 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Rajeev Kumar,Raju Kanaujia,Santosh Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Santosh Prakash Pandey,Vinod Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Raju Kanaujia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 670 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 3. This is this second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 and following order was being passed :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case for committing murder of the deceased Jugal Kishor and Ramdeen by causing injuries to them with lathi, danda and axe. Further submitted that there was no any intention to commit murder of the deceased persons or to cause such injuries. The incident took place all of sudden on account of dispute relating to boundary line of the filed. It is also submitted that during investigation complainant added one of co-accused Munnu @ Chandrapal who has already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that as per statement of witness Ravendra role of assault with lathi has been assigned to the applicant Arun Kumar and with kick and fists to the applicant Anshu. The applicants are in jail since 03.12.2021 and 11.12.20221 respectively having no any criminal antecedent. In case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and urged that in this case applicants have committed murder of two persons brutally, therefore, they are not entitled for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it appears that role of causing injuries with danda on the head of the deceased persons has been assigned to applicant Arun Kumar and applicant Anshu has been assigned with the role of causing injuries with kick and fists. In such a situation no case for bail is made out against the applicant Arun Kumar. Accordingly, the bail application to the extent of Arun Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 670 of 2021 (Session Trial No. 263/2022), under Sections 302, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Gursahaiganj, District-Kannauj is rejected. But for the applicant Anshu case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application to the extent of Anshu is allowed. Let the applicant Anshu involved in Case Crime No. 670 of 2021 (Session Trial No. 263/2022), under Sections 302, 323, 324,341, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Gursahaiganj, District-Kannauj be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. " 4. There is no new ground for the applicant to be enlarged on bail except the fact that the witness Ravindra has been discharged. The session trial is fixed for final argument as such, at this stage, it would not be fair to enlarge the applicant on bail. The concept of "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" now gets reversed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 7. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad