Amit Paswan vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Amit Paswan vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30636
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1010 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Paswan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Pandey,Shivam Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Qazi Vakil Ahmad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Amit Paswan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Juhi, District-Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2023 (State Vs. Shivam @ Bangdu) under Sections 302, 364,201, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Juhi, District-Kanpur Nagar, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.09, Kanpur Nagar.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22406 of 2023 (Amit Paswan Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 27.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

“1. Heard Mr. Qazi Vakil Ahmad, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Satyam Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Amit Paswan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for first informant submits that bail application of co-accused Uday Verma has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28264 of 2023 (Uday Verma Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

“1. Heard Shri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Uday Verma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 364, 201, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar.

3. As per prosecution case on 06.10.2022, Station Master of Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar, informed the police station regarding recovery of a dead body of an unknown male lying near the railway track. The information was recorded in general diary No. 14 on the same day by the police at 7:32 a.m. Thereafter inquest proceedings were conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.

4. On the same day at 22:47 hours an FIR was lodged by the informant alleging that on 16.10.2022 at 12:30 in the night the brother of the informant, Shalu, was called from his house by co-accused, Shivam Bangadu along with 2 other persons. In the night at about 14:40 hours Shalu called on the mobile phone of his sister and he stated that these persons are killing him and thereafter the phone got disconnected. The family members of Shalu kept on searching him throughout the night. In the morning they came to know that an unknown dead body has been recovered and thereafter they went to the post-mortem house and recognised the dead body of her brother. It was alleged that the aforesaid accused persons have caused the murder of the deceased, Shalu and FIR was lodged.

5. The investigating officer during investigation recorded the statement of the accused, Shivam who confessed that the deceased was making serious allegations against his brother-in-law and wife of co-accused, Paswan one day and was making fun of them when he asked the deceased, Shalu about the incident he started abusing him, co-accused, Paswan and his sister-in-law and brother-in-law and when he resisted he started beating him. Hence all the accused persons beated him badly and thereafter his dead body was loaded in an auto rickshaw and hidden on the railway track. The investigating officer also collected the CCTV footages of the incident. In the CCTV footage the deceased was seen being called from his house by the co-accused, Shivam Mishra and applicant from his house on 6th of October 2022 at 12:45 hours. In the 2nd CCTV footage all the accused persons were seen beating the deceased and in the 3rd CCTV footage the auto-rikshaw of co-accused is seen being driven by the co-accused, Shivam.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Singh alias Kaku, wherein the Apex Court acquitted the accused because the call details relied by the prosecution were not held admissible under section 65-A and 65-B of Evidence Act. He has submitted that the CCTV camera footage collected by the investigating officer cannot be read against the applicant at this stage in the absence of the certificate required under section 65B(4) of Evidence Act. The applicant is in jail since 29.05.2023.

7. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant.

8. After hearing the rival submissions this court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 volume 7 SCC page 1 has held that the requirement of production of certificate under section 65 B (4) of Evidence Act is mandatory but during trial the trial court can grant time to the prosecution to file the same at the later stage, therefore at the stage of consideration of bail application of an accused non-production of such certificate cannot be held to be fatal for the prosecution case. In the present case the there are confessional statements of co-accused persons recorded by the investigating officer who have admitted their role as well as the role of the applicant in the incident.

9. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting bail to the applicant at this stage.

10. The bail application is accordingly, rejected.

11. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ”

5. Similarly bail application of another co-accused Prinyank @ Pranshu Verma has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23493 of 2023, which is extracted as under:-

“1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0190 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34, 120B IPC, Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 302 and 364 IPC on 6.10.2022 at about 22.47 hours against Shivam Bangdoo (non applicant) and two unknown persons and according to FIR on 6.10.2022 at about 12.30 AM in the night co-accused Shivam Bangdoo and his two unknown associates has taken the brother of the informant from home in the night and at about 1.44 hours brother of the informant gave a call on the phone of his sister and informed her that Shivam Bangdoo and his associates are making assault and thereafter in spite of search of his brother, his whereabouts could not be traced and when after receiving information of the dead body informant arrived at mortuary then found that body body was of his brother.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation the named accused Shivam Bangdoo and his two associates were arrested on 7.10.2022 and they disclosed the name of applicant and five others and thereafter it is alleged that after several days Investigating Officer recovered three CCTV Footages and out of 3 CCTV Footages in 2 CCTV Footage applicant was seen along with deceased and other co-accused persons.

5. He further submits that as per prosecution in third CCTV Footage applicant was seen along with other co-accused persons and in second CCTV Footage applicant was seen along with other co-accused persons while he and other co-accused persons were making assault upon the deceased and thereafter when third CCTV Footage was visualized then it was found that applicant and other co-accused persons were pushing a tempo and except this evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

6. He further submits that even from the perusal of the CCTV Footage it appears that applicant and other co-accused persons were not having any weapon in their hand and without weapon they were making assault and, therefore, merely on the basis of CCTV Footage at this stage it cannot be said that they were having intention to commit murder of the deceased.

7. He further submits that even from the perusal of the post mortem report of the deceased it appears that they were not having any intention to kill as injury sustained by deceased were not of such nature, which could death.

8. He further submits that post mortem report of the deceased suggests that deceased did not sustain any internal damage and according to the Doctor, he died due to ane mortem head injury and, therefore, the present matter even as per prosecution evidence does not travel beyond Section 304 IPC.

9. He further submits that law is settled that for admissibility of electronic evidence procedure prescribed under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act should be followed and there is no certificate on record in this regard and, therefore, CCTV footage is not even admissible.

10. He next submits that according to post mortem report deceased died due to ante mortem head injury but there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant was the author of the head injury.

11. He further submits that even prosecution story with regard to the motive on the part of applicant is totally mum and prosecution failed to come out with specific motive against the applicant.

12. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 14.10.2022.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that complicity of applicant was revealed during investigation and during investigation Investigating Officer recovered CCTV Footage and from CCTV Footage involvement of applicant is quite apparent in the present matter and in one of the CCTV Footage applicant was seen to make assault upon the deceased along with other co-accused persons and further he was also seen in the tempo along with other co-accused persons and threw his dead body therefore, considering evidence collected by Investigating Officer against the applicant, applicant should not be released on bail.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. From the perusal of the record it reflects that applicant was although not named in the FIR and his complicity was revealed during investigation but during investigation Investigating Officer collected three CCTV Footages and out of three CCTV Footages in two CCTV Footages applicant was seen along with other co-accused persons and deceased and in one CCTV Footage he was seen to make assault upon the deceased along with other co-accused persons.

16. The genuineness and admissibility of prosecution evidence collected during investigation cannot be adjudicated at this stage and only the trial court will decide whether CCTV Footage which was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation is admissible or not.

17. Further, although only general rule has been assigned to the applicant but applicant along with eight other accused persons was seen to make assault upon the deceased and from the post mortem report of the deceased it appears that he sustained as many as 8 injuries, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that applicant was not having any common intention to cause death of the deceased.

18 At this stage, this Court cannot give any finding that whether present matter travels beyond Second 304 IPC or not.

19. As from CCTV Footage the involvement of the applicant in the present case prima facie appears to be apparent, therefore, in my view,applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

21. 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. ”

6. On the above premise, the learned counsel for first informant contends that the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned co-accused. No exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for first informant that present application for bail is also liable to be rejected.

7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not dislodged factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for first informant.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of accused, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that the bail applications of similarly situate co-accused have already been rejected by this Court, learned counsel for applicant could not point out any such fact from the record so as to distinguish the case of the present applicant from the co-accused whose bail applications have already been rejected by this Court, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

9. As a result, present bail application fails and is liable to be rejected.

10. It is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 ”

5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below by way of aforementioned sessions trial however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant contends that from perusal of paragraph-5 of aforementioned order, it is apparent that the role of assault has been assigned to applicant and other co-accused. However, other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. For ready reference the same are reproduced herein below in a chronological manner:-

(i) Co-accused Uday Verma has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9132 of 2024 (Uday Verma Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

” Heard Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

This is second bail application of the applicant.

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court on 25.07.2023 by this court directing the trial court to conclude the trial within period of one year.

Counsel for the applicant submits that before the trial court only four prosecution witnesses have been examined till date out of 28 prosecution witnesses. Trial will take time to conclude. The applicant is in jail since 29.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Uday Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 364, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 ”

(ii) Co-accused Priyank @ Pranshu Verma has been enlarged on bail by this Court Vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27677 of 2024 (Priyank @ Pranshu Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

” 1. None appeared on behalf of informant even in revised call.

2. Sri Arjit Srivastava, learned Advocate apprised the Court that he is also one of the counsel of the applicant but his name has not been shown in the cause list.

3. Heard Sri Arjit Srivastava and Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. Learned counsels for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on 20.07.2023 but after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, bail application of co-accused Uday Verma has been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9132 of 2024 and on merit, case of applicant is at par with him.

6. They further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.10.2022 i.e. for last more than two years.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than two years and similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering entire facts of the case vide order dated 20.07.2023 but it reflects that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, bail application of co-accused Uday Verma has been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on merit, case of applicant is at par with him.

10. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.10.2022 i.e. for last more than two years.

11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Priyank @ Pranshu Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

15. 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 :- 27.11.2024″

(iii) Co-accused Shivam Pandey has been enlarged on bail by this Court Vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45106 of 2024 (Shivam Pandey Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

“1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and he has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of co-accused Shivam Bangadu and during investigation, along with applicant, co-accused Uday Verma and Priyank @ Pranshu Verma were also made accused and after considering entire facts of the case, both have been released on bail by this Court. He further submitted that bail order of co-accused Udai Verma has been annexed at page no. 151 of the paper book and bail application of co-accused Priyank @ Pranshu Verma has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27677 of 2024 and case of applicant is at par with them.

5. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to the violation of Covid-19 guidelines.

6. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.12.2023 i.e. for last almost a years.

7. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. Considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that similarly placed two co-accused Udai Verma and Priyank @ Pranshu Verma have already been released on bail and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost a year and present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Shivam Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

13. 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 :- 10.12.2024 ”

(iv) Co-accused Abhishek Alias Bhairav has been enlarged on bail by this Court Vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43977 of 2024 (Abhishek Alias Bhairav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

“1. Heard Sri Harikrishna Rajesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 34 & 120B IPC, Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he was made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Uday Verma and Priyank @ Pranshu Verma and after considering entire facts of the case, both the co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

4. He next submitted that co-accused Uday Verma has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9132 of 2024 and co-accused Priyank @ Pranshu Verma has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.7.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 23493 of 2023 and case of applicant is exactly at par with them.

5. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 16.10.2022 i.e. for last more than two years.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. Considering the fact that similarly placed co-accused Uday Verma and Priyank @ Pranshu Verma have already been released on bail by this Court and applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 16.10.2022 i.e. for last more than two years, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant-Abhishek Alias Bhairav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

12. 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 :- 2.12.2024 ”

6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned charge sheeted but bailed out co-accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-acccused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

7. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 07.10.2022. As such, he has undergone more than two years and four months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Trial of applicant has already commenced before court below by means of aforementioned Sessions Trial. Upto this stage, four prosecution witnesses namely P.W.-1 Sheru (first informant), P.W.-2 Saleem U&ddin (Head Constable, P.W.-3, Dr. Sapan Kumar Gupta and P.W.-4 Sumit Kumar (Sub Inspector) have appeared before court below and their depositions have also been recorded. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that since the depositiion of first informant has already been recorded before court below, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he thus submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-2 has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, learned A.G.A. could not point out from the record any such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant could be so distinguished from bailed out co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant, therefore, present applicant is also lible to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, the police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, however irrespective of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), trial of applicant has already commenced before court below, upto this stage four prosecutions witnesses have deposed including first informant before court below, in view of above, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, present repeat application for bail is allowed.

11. Let the applicant-Amit Paswan involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

Order Date :- 4.3.2025

YK