HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26521 of 2022 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Jaiprakash @ Ravan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 1994, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli. 4. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40853 of 2021 (Jaiprakash @ Ravan vs. State of U.P.). The said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jaiprakash @ Ravan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 1994, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P.S. Thanabhawan, District Shamli. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is a case of bail jumping. The applicant was granted bail on 02.02.1995. Subsequently, he could not appear before the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Malik Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jaiprakash @ Ravan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) concerned court for proceedings of the trial and since 23.04.1996 non bailable warrants were issued against him by the trial court. It is argued that the trial of other co-accused persons has concluded and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them except co-accused Laxmi Chand who was assigned the specific role of firing upon the deceased. It is argued that the applicant is aged about 71 years having no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit which has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that the applicant as a matter of fact did not abscond but had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood to support his family. Para 14 has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. Learned counsel has further argued that now the applicant will regularly appear before the trial court without any default. The applicant is in jail since 17.01.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant absconded for about 25 years from the trial due to which his trial remained pending. It is argued that there are good chances that if the applicant is granted bail he may again abscond. It is further argued that in para 14 the applicant has mentioned that he was living in the State of Punjab but he did not inform the investigating agency and even the trial court of change of his address. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant absconded for about 25 years from the trial. His trial is held up because of his absconding. I do not find it a fit case for bail at this stage. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected at this stage. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to any legal impediment." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 13.12.2021 rejecting the first bail of the applicant and expediting the trial was filed before the trial court on 23.12.2021. The order-sheet of the said date of the court of C.J.M., Shamli has been placed before the Court which is at page 50 of the paper-book. It is submitted that the trial of the applicant has started in which as of now 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the copies of the statements of P.W.-1 Puran the first informant, P.W.-2 Sompal and P.W.-3 Urmila the wife of the deceased has been placed before the Court which are BAIL No. 26521 of 2022 2 annexed as Annexures-SA-1 to SA-3 to the third supplementary affidavit dated 17.03.2025. Further while placing Annexures-SA-1 to SA-3 of the 4th supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2025 it is submitted that statements of P.W.-4 Shyama, P.W.-5 S.I. Ravi Pal Singh and P.W.-6 Investigating Officer Suresh Singh Chauhan have been recorded. It is submitted that as such the witnesses of fact have been examined and the testimony of formal witnesses have been recorded. It is submitted that even from perusal of the statement of the witnesses of fact it transpires that the role assigned to the applicant is that of exhortation only. While placing paragraph 25 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is aged about 71 years at the time of filing of the bail application in the year 2022 and now since three years have passed he would have around 74 years of age. It is submitted that the postmortem examination of the deceased Moharpal goes to show that the doctor found two gun shot wounds but the same were entry wound and exit wound which would go to show further that there was only one gun shot injury on his body and the role of firing on him has been assigned to co-accused Laxmi Chand. It is submitted that although previously the applicant had absconded for about 25 years and thus his trial was held up but now the applicant assures the Court that he shall not abscond and shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court ever. It is submitted that although in the bail application the date of custody of the applicant is mentioned as since 17.01.2021 but the same was a typographical error and has submitted that as per paragraph 4 of his first supplementary affidavit dated 04.12.2023 the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he gives an undertaking on behalf of the applicant that if any undue adjournment is sought by him the trial court may directly cancellation of his bail on the same very day. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that the applicant had absconded for about 25 years. It is submitted that in so far as the role of the applicant, the stage of the trial, age of the applicant and also the applicant having no criminal antecedents is concerned, is not disputed. BAIL No. 26521 of 2022 3 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the trial in the matter is going on in which 06 witnesses have been examined. The role assigned to the applicant is that of exhortation. The deceased was found to have received a single gun shot wound which had an exit wound also. The applicant is aged about 74 years. The role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Laxmi Chand. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 10. Let the applicant- Jaiprakash @ Ravan, 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C. BAIL No. 26521 of 2022 4 (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 12. In so far as the undertaking of learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant is concerned, the trial court shall be strict and shall not take a lenient view while granting adjournments, if any, to the applicant but shall ensure that no undue adjournment is given to either of the parties. 13. The bail application is allowed. 14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 22, 2025 AS Rathore BAIL No. 26521 of 2022 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad