Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91835 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12226 of 2025 Applicant :- Jagbhan Kewat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. filed by the applicant Jagbhan Kewat, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in S.C. No.88/23, Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 304, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Erach, District Jhansi. 4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20908 of 2021 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is inordinate delay in the trial inasmuch as till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted that co-accused Dinesh Raikwar has been granted bail vide order dated 17.1.2023 passed by other Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13474 of 2021, Dinesh Raikwar vs. State of U.P., copy of the said order has been annexed as annexure no. 3 to the affidavit, which is subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant. It is further submitted while placing para no. 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.4.2025 that the applicant is involved in 04 other criminal cases but his implication in the said cases is false. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.7.2020. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits on 22.7.2021. It is submitted that in so far as the consideration of the fact that co-accused has been granted bail is concerned, the said order is subsequent to rejection of the first bail application of the applicant and reading of the said order does not go to show that rejection of the first bail application of the applicant has been considered in the same. It is submitted that as such the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the delay in trial alone cannot be the sole ground for bail inasmuch as on the own showing of the applicant the trial in the matter is going on in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined which goes to show that the trial court is proceeding with the trial. It is submitted that even in para no. 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit there is a reference of the statement of the P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and the said statements are annexure nos. 5 and 6 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that as such there is no new and fresh ground for consideration of bail and the same be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2021, the same reads as under:- "Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder 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- Jagbhan Kevat, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 304, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Erich, District Jhansi. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on 03.07.2020, the deceased Bhoopendra Singh @ Bhim went from his house. On 06.07.2020, there was a call from him to Smt. Vinita stating therein that he has been assaulted by co-accused Dinesh and the applicant with danda and they have pushed him from the vehicle as a result of which he has received injuries on his head, legs and neck. Then on 07.07.2020, a dead body is alleged to have recovered and on the same day it's inquest was conducted as the body of an unknown person. On 10.07.2020, the postmortem examination of the same was conducted as that of an unknown body. Later on, the father of the deceased received a message on his whatsapp on 21.07.2020 from which he identified the said dead body as that of his son. Then on 23.07.2020, the present first information report has been registered by Brijesh Kumar against the applicant and one Dinesh Raikwar. It is argued that prior to the lodging of the first information report, there has been no complaint or information to the police whatsoever regarding the missing of the deceased. It is further argued that the story as has been brought forward regarding call being received by Smt. Vinita from the deceased is an afterthought as even after receiving of the said call, no compliant whatsoever was made to any authority regarding the conversation as alleged of the said call. It is argued that the same is only with an intention to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. Learned counsel has further argued that the present case, is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is argued that implication of the applicant is without any evidence whatsoever and is only on the basis of a false and a concocted story. The applicant is not a previous convict as stated in para 17 but is involved in a previous case regarding theft of a tractor which has been mentioned in the order of the bail rejection of the court below. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2020. Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report. It is argued that the first informant is a resident of District- Kanpur, the applicant is a resident of District- Hamirpur and the dead body was recovered in District- Jhansi and as such, was recovered as unknown dead body after which investigation was done. It is argued that Devendra Kumar has been interrogated by the police who is a witness of the deceased being last seen with the applicant and co-accused on 06.07.2020 at about 7:00 pm on motor-cycle which was being driven by the applicant on which the deceased was sitting in the middle and co-accused was sitting behind him. It is further argued that Smt. Vinita has in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., stated that on 06.07.2020 between 10:45 pm to 11:00 pm, she received a call from the deceased who stated that the applicant and co-accused have assaulted him with danda and have pushed him from the motor-cycle as a result of which he has received injuries on his head, legs and neck. It is argued that the dead body was recovered then on 07.07.2020 and the doctor conducting the postmortem examination has found three injuries on the body and has opined the cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem injury and the time since death has been opined to be about 3-4 days from the postmortem report and as such, corresponds with the time of the incident. It is argued that the evidence of last seen and the statement of Smt. Vinita stating that the deceased informed of an assault on him by the applicant and co-accused are two clinching evidences. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the deceased went from his house on 03.07.2020 but on 06.07.2020, he made a call to Smt. Vinita and stated about an assault by the applicant and co-accused and after that his dead body was recovered on the next day. There is an evidence of last seen on a day prior in the night of the deceased being in company of the applicant and co-accused. The same goes to clinch the issue. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. " 8. The trial in the matter is going on in which three prosecution witnesses have been examined. The same goes to show that the trial trial court is proceeding with the trial. In so far as the ground of co-accused granting bail is concerned, the same cannot be a ground for consideration of bail since the said order does not reflect that the rejection of the bail application of the applicant at prior point of time was considered by the said Court. 9. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad