HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28654 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State and informant and supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for informant and Sri Ashotush Singh, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.02.2015 against applicant and four others and two unknown persons and according to the FIR applicant and his associates opened indiscriminate firing due to which one person died and applicant and co- accused Pankaj @ Ravindra were arrested at spot but entire allegations leveled against applicant are totally false. 5. He further submits, co-accused Ramveer and Nempal were also made accused in the FIR and charge-sheet was also filed against them along with applicant and co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra but well before they have been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and considering the fact that only general role in the FIR has been assigned to all the accused case of applicant is at par with them. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Mohamad, Noor Mohammad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Giri, Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, Swati Pandey, G.A. Sumit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submits, even co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was arrested at spot along with applicant has also been released on bail by this Court considering his long incarceration of more than a decade and his bail order has been annexed at page-63 of the paper-book and case of applicant is also at par with him. 7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution, while applicant was in custody then he escaped in the year 2018 and after seven years he could only be arrested on 24.09.2025 but before absconding he remained in jail for three years and even since his arrest one year has been passed. 8. He further submits, trial of the case is moving languid pace and till date out of 21 witnesses only 9 could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal. 9. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of nine other cases but his criminal history has been explained and all the cases were old one and except two cases which were of section 307 IPC all the other cases were of minor nature and in all these cases applicant is on bail. 10. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit, however, co-accused Ramveer, Nempal and Pankaj @ Ravindra have been released on bail but case of applicant is distinguishable from them as applicant during custody manage to escape and after seven years he could only be arrested. 12. They further submit, even co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was though apprehended at spot along with applicant was enlarged on bail on the ground that he was in jail for last more than 11 years and till date trial could not be concluded but applicant suffered total incarceration of only five years and therefore his case is distinguishable from co-accused Pankaj on the ground of period of incarceration. 13. They further submit, even applicant is having criminal history of as many as nine cases including two cases of Section 307 IPC and considering the criminal history of the applicant and his previous conduct there is every possibility that if he will be released on bail then he will again abscond. BAIL No. 28654 of 2026 2 14. They further submit, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the instant bail application may be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. Applicant was named in the FIR which was lodged in the year 2015 along with four others and according to the FIR he along with other named accused and two unknown associates open indiscriminate firing due to which deceased sustained injuries and died and even applicant and co-accused Pankaj @Ravindra were arrested at spot. 17. Further, however, it reflects, co-accused Ramveer, Nempal have been released on bail but considering the fact that applicant was arrested at spot along with co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra it appears, his case is distinguishable from them. 18. Further, however, co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was also allegedly apprehended at spot along with applicant has also been released on bail but considering his bail order, which has been annexed at page-63 of the paper-book it reflects, considering his long incarceration of more than 11 years he was released on bail. In the present matter it reflects, applicant was apprehended at spot on 23.02.2015 and he remained in custody till 2018 and thereafter he managed to escape from the jail and thereafter after seven years he could only be arrested on 24.09.2025 and therefore it reflects, he remained in jail in the present matter only for total five years and therefore case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of Pankaj @ Ravindra, who was in custody for more than a decade. 19. Further, case of applicant is also distinguishable from the case of other accused as he escaped while he was in jail and even he could only be arrested after seven years. Further, even it reflects, he is having criminal history of nine other cases including two cases of Section 307 IPC. 20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case it reflects, there is every possibility that if applicant will be released on bail then he may again abscond. 21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. BAIL No. 28654 of 2026 3 22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 23. 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. 24. However, considering the fact that applicant has already suffered incarceration of about four years and even after arrest he is in jail for last one year, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of one year from the date of production/knowledge of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 25. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed today by this Court to the District Judge concerned for compliance within 48 hours. September 28, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 28654 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad