Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11979 of 2025
Krishna Kumar
..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ravi Pandey, Santosh Kumar Singh, Vikash Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rajiv Kumar Singh, Shiv Veer Singh
Court No. - 67
Reserved On 08.10.2025
Delivered On 17.10.2025
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 364 & 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Tappal, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The FIR was instituted by informant on 20.09.2020 at about 03:37 AM stating that he was having enmity with villagers, Ved Pal s/o Soran and Jagveer s/o Surajmal over panchayat elections.
5. On 19.9.2020 at about 04:30 PM, his son Ankush received a phone call on his mobile no. 7055154893 from an anonymous number and he left the house immediately stating that he has been called by a person and he shall return after meeting him.
6. His son Ankush left the house on a motorcycle no. DL6S AQ 9818 Passion X Pro at 05:30 PM, the informant received an information on his mobile that his son has been thrown from a scorpio car in the agricultural field of one Kaalu in a serious condition.
7. The informant rushed to that place and found his son in a serious and injured condition, who was admitted to Kailash Hospital, Jewar and expired during treatment.
8. The named accused persons, Ved Pal, Jagveer, Ramveer, Kalwa, Sabi, Chinki, Udham and Dinesh in collusion with two unknown persons have hatched the conspiracy and got his son murdered.
9. His son was seen being thrown from the scorpio car of Dinesh by his elder brother, Sundar s/o Kishan Singh. Even he was threatened by the said persons throwing the injured person. The motorcycle was also not found near the place of occurrence.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
10. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
11. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
12. The applicant is not named in the FIR.
13. The name of the applicant has even not been disclosed at the time of recording of inquest proceedings.
14. The deceased was never conscious as can be inferred from the postmortem report as he had sustained ante-mortem head injury.
15. The name of the applicant was not even disclosed by the informant in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
16. The applicant has been nominated in the case on the basis of he having called the deceased person on his mobile on 19.9.2020 between 13:08 PM and 15:08 PM. The applicant is also stated to have sent message to the deceased person at 13:02 PM.
17. The name of the applicant has come up after five days of the incident.
18. The applicant was arrested and his mobile was taken into possession.
19. This Court had allowed the bail application of the applicant vide order dated 26.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9072 of 2021 and the following order was passed in leading Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8826 of 2021:-
Heard Shri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kapil Kumar and Ms. Sandhya Singh as well as Shri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Since these bail applications arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed the present offence. Only role for hatching conspiracy has been assigned to the applicants. There is no direct evidence to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 120-B IPC. It is further submitted that son of applicant Ved Pal, against whom allegation was also levelled, has been exonerated during investigation. Applicants have been implicated in this case due to village rivalry. Co-accused Krishna Kumar was not named in the F.I.R.. He has been implicated in this case on the basis of call details but same is not sufficient to connect him with the present matter taking recourse to the provisions of Section 120-B IPC. What conversation was made between the applicant Krishna Kumar and the person who received the calls, is not clear from the record. Recovery is false and planted. Referring to contents of F.I.R. it is also submitted that though vehicle Scorpio has been mentioned in the F.I.R. yet vehicle Swift has been recovered in the matter. On this count also involvement of applicants in this matter is doubtful. Applicants have no criminal history. They are languishing in jail since 27.9.2020 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that vehicle Scorpio has not been recovered till today yet applicants were involved in this case hatching conspiracy, which is corroborated by the call details. Mobile number disclosed in the F.I.R. and in the evidence collected during investigation belongs to the applicant Krishna Kumar, on which a number of occasion call was made. There is also statement of deceased to the witness Ved when he was being taken to hospital, which will be treated as dying declaration. A prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, particularly this fact that there is contradiction/ difference in vehicle details, nothing is on record to show the actual conversation made between the applicants and the deceased and also taking into the consideration that nothing was mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding statement of deceased made to Ved, who was carrying the deceased to hospital, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.
Let the applicants Ved Pal and Krishna Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 520 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 364, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Tappal, District - Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The applicants 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court...
20. The said order was challenged by the informant as he filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8102-8103 of 2021 before the Supreme Court and the following order was passed on 15.03.2024:-
Leave granted in all these petitions for special leave to appeal. The appellant is the complainant in these proceedings, being the father of the deceased, and in each appeal, respondent No. 2 has been arraigned as an accused for commission of offences, inter-alia, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Case of the appellant is that the deceased passed away on 19.9.2020 upon being assaulted by the
respondents/accused persons. By the respective orders of grant of bail passed by the High Court on 26.7.2021 in favour of Ved Pal and Krishna Kumar, Udham on 18.05.2022 and Kalwa @ Naveen on 27.06.2022, the accused persons were released. These are the orders assailed before us by the
appellant.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant- complainant (common in all these appeals), the accused- respondents in each of the cases as also the learned counsel for the State. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that a threat is being conveyed to the appellant by the accused persons to dissuade him from participating in the Court proceedings.
We have gone through the compliance report which has been filed in the form of an affidavit, affirmed by one Rajeev Trivedi on 04.03.2024 on behalf of the State. It is, inter-alia, recorded in this affidavit, filed pursuant to
the direction of this Court:-
10. That after filing of the FIR in Case Crime No. 520/2020 dt. 20.09.2020 out of which the present case arises, two subsequent FIRs have been lodged by the Petitioner/Original Complainant against the accused persons namely;
i. FIR No. 585/2022 dt. 11.11.2022 PS Tappal, District: Aligarh against the accused Kalwa @ Naveen, Udham and Krishna Kumar u/s 323, 352, 504 and 506 IPC.
ii. FIR No. 28/2023 dt. 21.01.2023 PS Raya, District: Mathura against the accused Chinki, Udham Singh, Kalwa @ Naveen, Krishan u/s 506 IPC.
11. That the said FIRs have been lodged subsequent to the passing of the Impugned Orders granting the Respondents bail. The FIRs pertain to the Respondents allegedly threatening to kill the Petitioner/Original Complainant and prime witnesses Gaurav, Sundar, Ashok and Anand.
12. That in FIR No. 585/2022, chargesheet dt. 21.05.2023 has been filed against the accused Naveen Kumar @ Kalwa, Udham Singh, Krishna Kumar u/s 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC. True Copy along with True Translated Copy of the Chargesheet dt. 21.05.2023 in Case Crime No. 585/2022 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1 (Page Nos. 8 to 38).
13. That in FIR No. 28/2023, chargesheet dt. 27.08.2023 has been filed against the accused Chinki and Krishna Kumar u/s 506 IPC. However Udham Singh and Kalwa @ Naveen Kumar were not charge-sheeted for the said offence. True Copy along with True Translated Copy of the Chargesheet dt. 27.08.2023 in Case Crime No. 28/2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/2 (Page Nos. 39 to 63).
Having considered the conduct of the respondents- accused persons after they were enlarged on bail, apart from the fact that they are all implicated in grave and serious offences, we are of the opinion that they ought not to remain enlarged on bail. All of them are implicated in offences resulting in the death of the appellants son.
Moreover, as indicated earlier, the post-bail conduct of majority of the accused persons is not conducive to conducting a free and fair trail. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and the bail granted to the
respondents-accused persons by the High Court by orders passed on 26.07.2021, 18.05.2022 and 27.06.2022 respectively. Bail granted to them shall stand cancelled. The respondents-accused persons are directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, within a period of four weeks from today. On their surrender, the concerned Court shall take them into custody.
The appeals shall stand allowed in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
21. The said order says that after filing of FIR in the instant case, two subsequent FIRs have been lodged by the informant against the accused persons. The details of said FIRs are as under:-
(i) FIR No. 585 of 2022 dated 11.11.2022, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh against the accused persons, Kalwa @ Naveen, Udham and Krishna Kumar, u/s 323, 352, 504 and 506 IPC.
(ii) FIR No. 28 of 2023 dated 21.01.2023, P.S. - Raya, District - Mathura against the accused persons, Chinki, Udham Singh, Kalwa @ Naveen, Krishan u/s 506 IPC.
22. It was stated in the said petitions before Supreme Court that the said FIRs were lodged subsequent to the passing of bail orders granted to the applicant and co-accused Vedpal.
23. It was also argued that in both FIR Nos. 585 of 2022 and 28 of 2023, the charge-sheet have been filed on 21.05.2023 and 27.08.2023, respectively.
24. It is argued that the said SLPs were filed in the year 2022 and the FIRs were instituted after filing of said SLPs for bail cancellation on 11.11.2022 and 21.01.2023 after legal consultations just to keep the applicant incarcerated.
25. The statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 were recorded on 15.7.2022, 3.8.2022 & 25.10.2023 & 9.1.2024, respectively and the bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.3.2024. Even subsequent to the bail rejection order, the statement of P.W. 5 has been recorded on 17.12.2024.
26. There is no injury sustained by any person in the said two FIRs instituted against the applicant and the co-accused persons.
27. The applicant has not misused the bail granted to him earlier on. The witnesses of fact have already been examined.
28. There is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence. The applicant is not a flight risk which is evident from the fact that he has surrendered before court after the bail granted to him being set aside by the Supreme Court.
29. As far as the said fact that the FIRs were instituted after filing the petition before Supreme Court stands fortified from the contents of FIR No. 585 of 2022 wherein it is mentioned that the informant had approached the court for getting the bail of the applicant and co-accused cancelled.
30. The instant exercise is the effort of the informant to keep the applicant incarcerated somehow or the other.
31. Criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as he is on bail in all the cases.
32. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2024, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:
33. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by the Supreme Court and the applicant has not been granted any leave to apply for bail before this Court, as such, the said bail application can only be entertained by the Supreme Court and not this Court.
34. Subsequent to granting of bail to the applicant, two more FIRs No. 585 of 2022 and 28 of 2023 have been instituted against the applicant and he had threatened the informant to dissuade him from deposing in court.
REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
35. Subsequent to grant of bail, all the witnesses of fact have been examined and only formal witnesses remain to be examined. There was no inkling of applicant having tampered with the evidence.
36. Reliance has been placed before Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17918 of 2014, Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P., whereby the Supreme Court had set aside the order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail of the applicant therein on the ground that the applicant had not been permitted filing of a fresh bail application before the High Court.
37. The accused therein was granted bail by the High Court and the said order was set aside by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not grant any liberty to the accused therein to file a fresh bail application.
38. The High Court had thereupon rejected the bail application filed by the accused therein on the ground that he was not granted any liberty by the Supreme Court to apply for a fresh bail application, as such, the applicant herein is also not entitled for bail.
39. The Supreme Court deprecated the said act of the High Court stating that the right of the accused to apply for bail does not get extinguish even after the rejection of the bail by the Supreme Court or any Court whatsoever and the matter was remanded back to the High Court to decide the bail application on merits.
CONCLUSION:
40. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.
41. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
42. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".
43. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
44. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.
45. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the fact that the applicant was already granted bail in the instant case and also taking into consideration the fact that two FIRs were instituted subsequent to filing of SLP before Supreme Court for cancellation of bail coupled by the fact that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined by the Trial Court, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
46. Let the applicant- Krishna Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
47. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
48. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
October 17, 2025
Siddhant
