Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137310 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45531 of 2023 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Yadav,Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.66 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other accused persons is stated to have assaulted the brother of the informant, namely, Pradeep Kumar causing grievous injuries to him. It is particularly mentioned in the FIR that applicant and accused Karm Singh had assaulted the deceased with Balkati on 22.3.2023 at about 02:20 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is languishing in jail since 3.4.2023, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for more than two years. The trial is moving at a snail's pace as only PW-1 has been examined and even his cross-examination has not been done on behalf of the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant while the said Balkati has been recovered from the possession of co-accused person Karm Singh, as such, the case of the applicant is at different footing to Karm Singh. All the injuries sustained by the deceased are on the head and no any injury has been sustained by the deceased on his other parts of the body. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are multiple incised wound observed on the occipital region of the deceased person, which are on the back of head and are on vital organ. The deceased had expired due to the said injuries sustained as occipital bone was found fractured. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 29.7.2025, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was conducted on 30.4.2024 and the case was adjourned on the application filed on behalf of accused persons for cross-examination and the opportunity of said cross- examination was closed on 18.6.2025. The said delay, if any, cannot be attributed to the prosecution alone. 10. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. 11. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out. 12. 12. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. 13. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. 14. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. 15. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant." 16. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is one of the main assailants and the deceased had expired due to the said injuries sustained on his occipital region and also taking into consideration the status of trial, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 18. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 19. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. 20. 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 :- 12.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad