Allahabad High Court
Prince Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. … on 26 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36605 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2491 of 2025 Applicant :- Prince Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Ayush Singh,Vijay Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sukh Deo Singh Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No.0239 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., P.S.- Motigarpur, District- Sultanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the present applicant in the first information report whereas the applicant has been attributed the role of assaulting withdanda. He next submits that one of the co-accused Arjun Singh was attributed the role of assaulting the deceased with iron rod but his name has been dropped during the investigation. He also submits that as per the prosecution story the incident took place on 19.09.2024 and the first information report was lodged by Randhir Singh and Abhishek Singh, who is claiming himself as an eye-witness and Randhir Singh stated that he received injuries during the course of incident and his uncle was beaten by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Further submission is that during the course of investigation, medico legal examination of Abhishek Singh was conducted on 24.09.2024, but the delay has not been explained. He further submits that the injured Abhishek Singh, who is claiming himself to be an eye-witness, stated that at the time of incident the applicant and the other co-accused persons including one of accused Arjun Singh reached on the spot with a vehicle and they were having iron rods and danda in their hands and they assaulted the deceased, but the Investigating Officer did not find the presence of Arjun Singh at the place of occurrence and, therefore, admittedly his name was dropped, which itself creates material doubt in the story of the prosecution. He further submits that at a later stage offence under the Gangster Act has also been charged. Further there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant and he is a law abiding citizen and he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024. He also submits that the charge sheet has been filedthus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that he may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed thecontentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant actively participated in the incident as the injured witness, in his statement, has categorically defined the role of the applicant, but he does not dispute the fact that the applicant reached on the spot along with Arjun Singh, who was having iron rod, but the presence of the co-accused, who is named in the first information report with iron rod, was not found by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, his name was dropped.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is allegation against him that he was involved in committing the offence, thus submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons for assault. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the injured was medically examined after eight days of the incident and there is no plausible explanation of the same. Further, the name of one of the accused- Arjun Singh has been dropped who is said to be assaulted the deceased and having the iron rod at the time of occurrence which prima facie creates substantial doubt in the prosecution story. This is also noticed that one of the co-accused- Vipin Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5209 of 2025 and this fact has not been controverted either by learned counsel for the complainant or by learned counsel for the State, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.09.2024 and except apart one case under the Gangster Act, which is charged against the applicant subsequently, there is no previous criminal history.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
8. Let the applicant- Prince Singh, involved in the aforementioned 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:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS);
(iii) 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. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and
(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. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS).
9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 26.6.2025
Anand/-