Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Arsh Alias Bulley vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134473
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22870 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Arsh Alias Bulley
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.79 of 2024, under Sections 302, 307, 34, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Phaphamau, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40557 of 2024 and the following order was passed:-

"1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.79 of 2024, under Sections 302, 307, 34, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Phaphamau, District- Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that on 31.3.2024 the applicant alongwith 2-3 unknown persons had fired at his brother and had also thrown bombs at him, thereby committed his murder and injured one Ram Naresh s/o Raja Ram. The brother of the informant was declared brought dead at the hospital, whereas, injured Ram Naresh was admitted therein for treatment.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that applicant is named in the FIR, but there is no gunshot injury sustained by any of the injured persons. All the injuries were sustained by explosive material.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that co-accused person Aman Sahu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40465 of 2024, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedent to his credit except a case of police party firing no injury case, which has been foisted at him at the time of his arrest. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.4.2024.

7. Per contra, learned learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that it is an open and shut case as far as the applicant is concerned, who is named in the FIR, and the injured Ram Naresh in his statement has categorically assigned the role of applicant of having thrown bomb at the injured and deceased person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that co-accused person Aman Sahu was enlarged on bail on the ground that he was not named in the FIR. The delay in institution of FIR also stands explained as it was the utmost duty of the informant to first rush the injured persons to hospital to save their lives, whereby one of them was declared brought dead and another was admitted for treatment.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, and without commenting any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

11. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 1.4.2024, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for more than 01 year and 04 months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only one witness has been examined to date. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that there is no new ground for pressing the present bail application except the period of incarceration and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

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 :- 8.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)