HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44010 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.311 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 Cr.L.A. Act, Police Station-Vrindavan, District- Mathura with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per the prosecution story, the applicant, along with seven other co- accused, reached the place of occurrence in a Scorpio vehicle. After alighting from the said vehicle, all of them are alleged to have fired indiscriminately at Hari Om, who attempted to evade the assault. In the course of the incident, the accused persons are stated to have fired repeatedly, resulting in the death of Hari Om and Shyam Singh on the spot. The injured Radha Charan was immediately taken to Maheshwari Hospital, Mathura, where he was admitted on 20.03.2012 at about 09:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is true that it is a double murder case but the applicant has not been assigned the role of having fired at either of the deceased persons, rather it has come out in the statement of the said injured person Radha Charan that the applicant shot at him and caused gun- shot injuries to him, as such, the case of applicant is at a different footing to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Radheyshyam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the other co-accused persons. It is true that the said accused persons have been convicted, however, the one of the accused person-Sundar, after conviction, has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal. There is criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant which has been explained. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the incident is of the year 2012 and applicant is absconding since then. Applicant was arrested on 16.09.2022, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 28.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, no witness has been examined to date. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was absconding for about ten years and the co- accused persons have been convicted, the applicant being the member of the said unlawful assembly armed with firearm weapon and caused injuries to the injured person-Ram Charan, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. September 8, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 44010 of 2023 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad