Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56073 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7593 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Niraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar,G.A.,Vishal Jaiswal Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the third bail application. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.85 of 2021 at Police Station-Newaria, District-Jaunpur under Sections 307, 302 and 34 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2021. The first and second bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 31.01.2023 and 10.01.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Niraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness. 2. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the progress of the trial in any manner. 3. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 11 witnesses to bring home the charges. Nine prosecution witnesses including the material witnesses of fact have already been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said witnesses. 4. Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Denial of an opportunity to the applicant to collect and adduce the evidence before the learned trial court will be contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 5. Learned AGA contends that the applicant has a criminal history of some more cases. Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person. He is in jail and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence, details of the cases could not be obtained and stated in the bail application. However, relying on the records available with the learned AGA and the instructions received from his client, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said cases. The said cases do not depict any criminal trait and have no bearing on the instant bail application. 6. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Neeraj Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. In case the applicant does not cooperate in the process of trial or adopts dilatory tactics or threatens witnesses or violates any bail condition, the learned trial court shall record its finding to that effect and cancel the bail of the applicant without recourse to this Court. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad