HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19072 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant- accused in Case Crime No.279 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 427, 120B, 302 IPC, Police Station- Barua Sagar, District- Jhansi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail. 3. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025, which is reproduced as below:- "1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ruchita Jain, learned for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 279 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 427, 120-B, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Barua Sagar, District - Jhansi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant- accused on bail. 4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is undue delay in lodging of the first information report. The allegation that applicant has given a spade blow at deceased is wholly false and the same is not supported by post-mortem report. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case under Section - 302 I.P.C. is made out and that prosecution case would not travel beyond the purview of Section - 304 I.P.C. It was stated that the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2024 and only one witness has been examined so far. 5. It was submitted that second bail application of similarly placed co-accused Pradeep Kumar has already been allowed by this Court. As per prosecution version, role of firing at deceased has been assigned to co-accused Gaurav and Sanjay @ Bablu. Merely a general role has been assigned to applicant that applicant and co-accused Gaurav have made firing in air at the spot. Regarding alleged abscondence of applicant, it was submitted that applicant has suffered road accident on 16.08.2019, in which his leg was fractured and that due to that injury, he remained admitted in Vaidic Hospital, Kanpur from 07.10.2023 to 09.10.2023. The alleged abscondence of applicant was not deliberate. The criminal history of one case shown Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.S. Chauhan, Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saurabh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) shown against applicant has duly been explained. Lastly, it was stated that applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2024 and only one witness has been examined so far and thus, trial of the case would take sufficient long time. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after the incident applicant has absconded and he was arrested by the police on 07.01.2024 after a lapse of three years. In affidavit filed in support of bail application, there was no such plea that deceased has suffered road accident and he was under treatment. It was submitted that this theory has been developed by way of rejoinder affidavit. It was stated that applicant was declared absconder and a reward of Rs.25,000/- was announced upon his arrest. Proceedings under Section ? 83 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against him. The version of applicant that he has suffered road accident and he remained under treatment is wholly false. It was pointed out that in X-ray plate filed with rejoinder affidavit, date of x-ray has been shown as 24.07.2019 and thus, if he has suffered any injury, it was in the year of July, 2019. Only some O.P.D. receipts and prescriptions were attached along with rejoinder affidavit and they pertains to the period from 28.07.2019 to 19.08.2019, whereas other medical documents pertain to the month of September, 2023 and there is nothing to show that applicant was under treatment from August, 2019 to September, 2023, which falsifies the version of applicant that he was under continuous treatment for the alleged injury. It is further submitted that co-accused Pradeep Kumar, who has been granted bail by this Court, was in jail since 14.01.2021 and he had already undergone detention of three years and nine months, whereas applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2024. Further, due to long abscondence of applicant and considering the fact that process under Section ? 83 Cr.P.C. was issued against him, applicant cannot claim parity with said co-accused Pradeep Kumar. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Perusal of record shows that applicant is named in the first information report. The role of firing has also been assigned to the applicant, however it was stated that the bullet sustained by deceased was fired by co-accused Gaurav and Sanjay @ Bablu. It was shown that after incident, applicant has absconded for a period of about four years. There are discrepancies in the medical documents attached with the bail application. It was also submitted on behalf of prosecution that process under Section ? 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued against applicant and reward of Rs. 25,000/- was declared upon his arrest and only then he could be arrested on 07.01.2024. In view of these facts and antecedents of applicant, he cannot claim parity with co- accused Pradeep Kumar. 9. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, without expressing any opinion upon merits, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of the applicant - Saurabh is rejected." 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The role of firing at deceased has been assigned to co-accused Gaurav and Sanjay @ Bablu. It was pointed out that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, similarly placed co-accused Rahul and Amit @ Chuchu have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that co-accused Pradeep Kumar was assigned role of causing injuries to deceased with a spade and he has also been granted bail. During trial only two witnesses have been examined so far and thus trial of the case would likely to take sufficient long time. It is further submitted that brother of applicant-accused, namely, Gaurav has passed away one day back. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that in view of all attending facts, applicant may be granted bail. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 07.01.2024 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail BAIL No. 19072 of 2025 2 and will co-operate in trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. However, it could not be disputed that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, similarly placed co-accused persons have already granted bail. 6. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, period of detention and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. 7. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant - Saurabh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. September 8, 2025 'SP'/- BAIL No. 19072 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad