Prince v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33586 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Pushpendra Vishwakarma, holding brief of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 491 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per prosecution story, named accused Harpal, Harsh, Karn Mishra and one unknown person are stated to have fired at the informant on

07.08.2025 at about 10 p.m.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶6Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by more than four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no injury sustained by any person. The applicant was not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated subsequently in the statement of informant as an afterthought. There is a recovery of country made pistol at the pointing out of the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prince .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶9In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another,

(2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶10Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR and the applicant being not named in the FIR, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11Let the applicant-Prince, 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 shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶12In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13It 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. September 26, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 33586 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad