Bale @ Bal Krishna @ Santosh Mishr @ ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1875 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bale @ Bal Krishna @ Santosh Mishr @ ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 14 July, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39902
 
Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6056 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Bale @ Bal Krishna @ Santosh Mishr @ Satish Mishra @ Bala
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh,Pradeep Rai,Vishnu Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2016 i.e. more than 9 years in Case Crime No.20 of 2016 under Section 396 IPC Police Station- Nawabganj, District-Pratapgarh.

3.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR which has been lodged against the unknown persons inasmuch as since the informant was not aware about the antecedents or details of the accused persons therefore he could not level any allegation against any person by name. During course of investigation, the role of the present applicant emerges as of companion of one Pradeep Kumar Tiwari @ Rohit, who has been attributed the role of firing. The name of two more accused persons, Vikas Mishra and Vipin Kumar Pandey has emerged to the effect that they were also with Pradeep Kumar Tiwari @ Rohit, who has allegedly fired upon the victim (since deceased).

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexures- 8, 9 & 10 which are the bail orders granted by this Court whereas co-accused Vikas Mishra, Vipin Kumar Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Tiwari @ Rohit have been granted bail on 06.02.2024, 01.03.2024 & 06.11.2024 in Crl. Misc.Bail Application Nos.795/2024, 2064/2024 & 11596/2024. Therefore, Sri Singh has stated that since this Court has granted bail to the identically placed accused persons, namely, Vikas Mishra, Vipin Kumar Pandey and also granted bail to Pradeep Kumar Tiwari @ Rohit against whom the allegation of firing has been levelled, therefore, on the basis of principles of pairity, the present applicant may be released on bail.

5. Besides out of 50 prosecution witnesses, only 8 prosecutions witnesses have been examined by the learned trial court, therefore, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future hence considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant, who is in jail since 06.07.2026 i.e more than 9 years and the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, he may be enlarged on bail in view of the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court in Catena of cases.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re;Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered.

7. The present applicant is having criminal history of 17 cases, which has been explained in paras 24 to 27 of the bail application. Attention has been drawn towards para 35 of the bail application wherein learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of Apex Court in re: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2020 (11) SC, wherein the Apex Court clearly holds that "pendency of criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a ground for refusal of bail."

8. Learned counsel has stated that the present applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

9. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail by submitting that though the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and allegation of the present applicant is similar to those co-accused persons but the present applicant is having checkered criminal history, however, he could dispute the dictum of Apex Court in re: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another. Learned AGA also submitted that so far as the pace of trial is concerned that fact is beyond his control and any appropriate direction may be issued to the learned trial court

10. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, considering the dictum of Apex Court in re: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2020 (11) SC; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than 09 years, the bail orders of this Court whereby co-accused Vikas Mishra, Vipin Kumar Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Tiwari @ Rohit have been granted bail on 06.02.2024, 01.03.2024 & 06.11.2024 in Crl. Misc.Bail Application Nos.795/2024, 2064/2024 & 11596/2024; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12 Let the applicant (Bale @ Bal Krishna @ Santosh Mishr @ Satish Mishra @ Bala) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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 appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

(ii) The applicant 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/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

(iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

(iv) 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

13. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, fixing short date, if possible, on day to day basis and if any of the witnesses does not cooperate in the trial court proceedings, any appropriate coercive steps may be taken strictly in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 14.7.2025

Reena/-

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)