HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51423 of 2022 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34103 of 2021 (Shishupal vs. State of U.P.). 4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Shishupal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 142 of 2021, under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. 5. The records show that previously on 09.09.2025 learned counsel for the State had sought time to seek instructions to the 7th supplementary affidavit dated 03.09.2025. Today he submits that he has received instructions for the same. 6. Even previously on many dates learned counsel for the first Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupama Singh, Archana Singh, Sadhana Singh, Satyendra Kumar Pandey, Shyam Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Jitendra Kumar Shishupal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) informant was not present and thus on the last occasion the matter was adjourned as a last opportunity. Today again he is not present. 7. The Court proceeds to hear the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although this is second bail application of the applicant but the fact remains that he is in jail since 03.03.2021 and thus is in jail since more than 41/2 years. It is submitted that there are 17 witnesses to be examined in trial out of which only 04 witnesses have been examined till date and thus the trial will still take a long time to go. It is further submitted while placing third supplementary affidavit dated 04.11.2024 that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 38106 of 2022 (Shishupal Vs. State of U.P. and Another) although had rejected the said 482 petition vide order dated 28.01.2023 but had expedited the trial and had directed the same to conclude within one year from the date of receipt of the said order, the copy of the order has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the said supplementary affidavit. The said order reads as under:- "यह आवेदन पत्र अन्तगर्त धारा 482 दं० प्र० सं०, आवेदक की ओर से सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 1258 वषर् 2021, मुकदमा अपराध संख्या 0142 वषर् 2021, अन्तगर्त धारा 307, 302 भा० दं० सं०, थाना सूरजपुर, िजला गौतमबुद्ध नगर, (राज्य उ० प्र० प्रित िशशुपाल), में प्रेिषत आरोप पत्र िदनांिकत 9-4-2021 तथा आदेश िदनांक 25-11-2021 िजसके द्वारा प्रश्नगत मामले को िवचारण हेतु सत्र न्यायालय के सुपुदर् िकया गया है एवं िवद्वान अपर मुख्य न्याियक मिजस्ट्रेट, गौतमबुद्ध नगर द्वारा पािरत प्रसंज्ञान आदेश तथा प्रश्नगत मामले में िवद्वान अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश / त्विरत न्यायालय, प्रथम गौतमबुद्ध नगर द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 25-7-2022 िजसके द्वारा आवेदक का उन्मोचन प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकया गया है, को अपास्त िकये जाने की याचना की गयी है। संक्षेप में अिभयोजन कथानक इस प्रकार है िक वादी की सूरजपुर इन्डस्ट्रीयल एिरया में OMRIFICGLIBAL COMUNICATERS Pvt. Ltd. के नाम से कम्पनी है, िजसमें वादी के अलावा दो और डायरेक्टर है िजनके नाम हेमन्त कु मार और राम नाराण िसह है। उपरोक्त कम्पनी न्यूज चैनल को लाईव की गािडयां और एक्यूमेंटस देने का काम करतीर है। िदनांक 28-2-2021 को समय सुबह 3-30 बजे हेमन्त कु मार अपने दोस्त िशशुपाल के साथ आिफस आये और पूरा िदन वहीं पर रहे। इनके अलावा गाडर् सहदेव िसह भी कम्पनी में मौजूद था। िदनांक 28-2-2021 को समय करीब 7-30 पी० एम० पर दूसरी िशफट के गाडर् प्रवेश कु मार ने अपने मोबाईल नं0-8394982703 से वादी के मो० नं0-9311230678 पर काल करके बताया िक दोनों गम्भीर अवास्था में है और िसर से खून बह रहा है और बेहोशी की हालत में है। यह भी कहा जाता ह िक िशशुपानल ने कम्पनी से 7,50,000/- रूपये कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर हेमन्त कु मार से िलए थे।, 1,00,000/- रूपये िशशुपाल ने वापस कर िदए। ये िववाद लगभग छः माह से चल रहा था। आज िशशुपाल ने अपने सािथयों के साथ िमलकर हेमन्त कु मार व गाडर् सहदेव के ऊपर जान से मारने की िनयत से ईंट व पत्थर व बैटरी तथा भारी वस्तु से प्रहार िकया। गाडर् की सूचना पर वादी व तरूण खारी मौके पर पहुंचे और दोनो को गम्भीर अवास्था में कै लाश हािस्पटल, ग्रेटर नोएडा में भतीर् कराया जो आई० सी० यू० में गम्भीर अवस्था में भतीर् है। अिभयोजन के अनुसार, किथत घटना की प्रथम सूचना िरपोटर् 18 घण्टें िवलम्ब के पश्चात वादी सुभाष चन्द्र द्वारा िदनांक 1-3-2021 को समय 1-26 बजे धारा 307 भा० दं० सं० के अन्तगर्त थाना सूरजपुर पर अिभयुक्त िशशुपाल एवं एक अन्य अज्ञात के िवरूद्ध दजर् करायी गयी। दौरान उपचार सहदेव िसह की मृत्यु के पश्चात उपरोक्त मुकदमा में िववेचक द्वारा धारा 302 भा० दं० सं० की बढ़़़़ोत्तरी की गयी। BAIL No. 51423 of 2022 2 मैंनें आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता साधना िसह तथा राज्य की ओर से िवद्वान अपर शासकीय अिधवक्ता को सुना एवं पत्रावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा मुख्य रूप से यह तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया िक आवेदक िनदोर्ष है उसे प्रश्नगत मामले में झूठा फसाया गया है। आवेदक ने कोई अपराध कािरत नहीं िकया है। आवेदक का प्रश्नगत अपराध से कोई वास्ता व सरोकार नहीं है। आवेदक के िवरूद्ध झूठा आरोप लगाया गया है। आवेदक के िवरूद्ध कोई अपराध नहीं बनता है। आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा कथन िकया गया िक प्रश्नगत प्राथिमकी फजीर् एवं मनगंढ़़़त है तथा िववेचक द्वारा मनगंढ़़़त कहानी बनाकर आवेदक के िवरूद्ध आरोप पत्र न्यायालय प्रेिषत िकया गया है। िवद्वान मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा पािरत प्रसंज्ञान आदेश िविध संगत नहीं है। यह भी कथन िकया गया िक िवद्वान िवचारण न्यायालय द्वारा गलत ढ़़़ंग से आवेदक का उन्मोचन प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकया गया है। इसके िवपरीत िवद्वान अपर शासकीय अिधवक्ता द्वारा यह तकर् रखा गया िक चुटैल हेमन्त कु मार ने अपने बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 161 दं० प्र० सं० में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कथन िकया है िक आवेदक िशशुपाल ने एक ईंट से जान से मारने की िनयत से उसके िसर पर वार िकया है, िजसके पिरणाम स्वरूप आयी हुई चोटों के कारण वह वहीं िगर गया। बाद में इलाज के बाद होश आने पर उसे पता चला िक िशशुपाल ने पहले सहदेव के िसर पर ईंट से वार िकया था िजसके बाद सहदेव की मौत हो गयी तथा िफर उसी ईंट से उसके िसर पर वार करके उसे भी चोटें पहुंचायी। इस आधार पर प्रथम दृष्टया प्राथिमकी से आरोप सािबत होता है। इस प्रकार प्राथर्ना पत्र धारा 482 दं० प्र० सं० के अन्तगर्त हस्तक्षेप का कोई आधार नहीं पाया जाता है। मैंने आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता, िवद्वान अपर शासकीय अिधवक्ता एवं चुटैल हेमन्त कु मार के बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 161 दं० प्र० सं० तथा पत्रावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। चुटैल हेमन्त कु मार ने अपने बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 161 दं० प्र० सं० में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कथन िकया है िक आवेदक िशशुपाल ने एक ईंट से जान से मारने की िनयत से उसके िसर पर वार िकया है, िजसके पिरणाम स्वरूप आयी हुई चोटों के कारण वह वहीं िगर गया। बाद में इलाज के बाद होश आने पर उसे पता चला िक िशशुपाल ने पहले सहदेव के िसर पर ईंट से वार िकया था िजसके बाद सहदेव की मौत हो गयी तथा िफर उसी ईंट से उसके िसर पर वार करके उसे भी चोटें पहुंचायी। इस आधार पर प्रथम दृष्टया प्राथिमकी से आरोप सािबत होता है। चूँिक आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा जो तकर् प्रस्तुत िकये गये है वे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा मेससर् िनहािरका इंफास्टक्चर प्रा० िल० प्रित महाराष्ट राज्य, ए० आई० आर० 2021 एस० सी० 1918, िदए गये िसद्वान्त के अन्तगर्त ग्राहय नहीं है एवं तथ्यों को देखने का अिधकार इस न्यायालय को नहीं है। उक्त सभी तथ्य दौरान सत्र परीक्षण देखें जा सकते हैं। तदनुसार यह प्राथर्ना पत्र बलहीन है एवं िनरस्त होने योग्य है। तदनुसार यह प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है। आवेदक के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा अन्त में यह कथन िकया गया िक प्रश्नगत सत्र परीक्षण में आरोप िवरिचत िकये जा चुके हैं तथा एक साक्षी का बयान अिभयोजन साक्षी संख्या 1 के रूप में अंिकत िकया जा चुका है। इस आधार पर यह याचना की गयी िक िवद्वान िवचारण न्यायालय को आदेिशत िकया जाए िक वह िनधार्िरत समय के अन्दर सत्र परीक्षण का िनस्तारण करें। िवद्वान िवचारण न्यायालय को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह इस आदेश की प्रमािणत प्रितिलिप प्राप्त होने के एक वषर् के अन्दर प्रश्नगत सत्र परीक्षण का िनस्तारण िनयमानुसार करें।" 9. It is further submitted while placing the order dated 20.03.2023 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court- IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar from the certified copy of the order-sheet of the trial court which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the first supplementary affidavit dated 07.02.2024 that the said order has been filed before the trial court on the said date and more than one year has passed BAIL No. 51423 of 2022 3 but still the trial has not concluded. It is further submitted while placing seventh supplementary affidavit dated 03.09.2025 that the injured Hemant has died during the pendency of the present trial and due to his death the prosecution has moved an application before the trial court on 23.04.2025 for discharging him. It is submitted that as such the star witnesses of the case Hemant who is also an injured has died and has not been examined before the trial court. It is submitted that the prayer for bail of the applicant be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 26.10.2021. It is submitted that the trial is going on in the present matter in which 04 witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that the perusal of the first information report and the evidence on record clearly shows that the applicant has a clear motive to commit the present offence and his presence cannot be doubtful. It is submitted that the present case is a case in which one person namely Sahdev died on the spot and Hemant was an injured who died subsequently. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application. 11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record. Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed Vakalatnama in the office on 26.10.2021 but the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shishupal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 142 of 2021, under Sections 307 and 302 IPC registered at P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. BAIL No. 51423 of 2022 4 The prosecution case as per the first information report lodged on 1.3.2021 by Subhash Chandra under Section 307 IPC naming the applicant and one unknown person is that they are involved in the business of providing equipments to news channels for live telecast in which he, Hemant Kumar (the injured) and Ram Narayan Singh are the Directors. On 28.2.2021 at about 3:30 a.m., Hemant Kumar came to the office along with his friend Shishupal who is the applicant and they remained there throughout the day. Other than them, the guard of the company namely Sahdev was also present there. At about 7:30 p.m., a guard of the second shift namely Pravesh Kumar called from his mobile to the mobile of the first informant and told him that both the persons are lying in an injured condition and blood is oozing out and they are in a state of unconsciousness. Shishupal had taken Rs. 7.5 lacs from Hemant Kumar who is the Director of the Company and had returned Rs. 1 lac only. A dispute was going on since last six months. Shishupal along with his associate assaulted Hemant Kumar and Sahdev, the guard of the company with stones, bricks, battery and heavy object. Both the injured have been admitted in Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida who are in ICU. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report but he he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that later on Sahdev died and then Section 302 IPC was added in the present case. It is further argued that the prosecution story is totally false and concocted inasmuch as Omhari, the brother of the injured, Hemant Kumar was present there but still the first information report was not lodged immediately by Omhari, the brother of the Hemant Kumar. It is also argued that the lodging of the first information report by a different person when Omhari, the brother of Hemant Kumar was present which would show that the same is with an intention to falsely implicate the applicant in the present case. It is further argued that even though the evidence that the applicant was coming out of the company by scaling the gate is also false and with an intention to implicate the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was the easy prey as there was some dispute with regard to money between Hemant Kumar and the applicant and just to create pressure and get the liability settled, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the statement of Hemant Kumar was recorded after 40 days of the incident which also goes to show that the version is not trustworthy. It is argued that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and as such there is no chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence. The applicant having no criminal history as stated in paragraph 17 and is in jail since 3.3.2021. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and he was seen running away from the company by scaling the gate after committing the incident. Hemant Kumar is an injured witness who has stated about the applicant assaulting him and even the fact that he has assaulted Sahdev. The presence of Hemant Kumar at the place of occurrence is not beyond any doubt and is natural. The postmortem report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution story and even the injury report of Hemant Kumar corroborates with it. The prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. BAIL No. 51423 of 2022 5 After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, It is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. Hemant Kumar is an injured witness whose presence cannot be doubted. The identity of the applicant also cannot be doubted. 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. 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." 12. The trial of the present matter has been expedited by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2023 passed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said order has been filed before the trial court as per the order-sheet demonstrated before the Court. The trial in the matter is going on in which 04 witnesses have been examined. It cannot be said that the trial is at a standstill stage. Hemant the injured witness of the incident died during pendecy of the trial. In so far as the delay in trial is concerned, the trial is going on and the trial court is further reminded of the order expediting the trial is expected to comply with the same its letter and spirit. No ground for bail is made out. 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 23, 2025 AS Rathore BAIL No. 51423 of 2022 6 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad