# Jaswant Singh v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 369 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-02-07 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12654 of 2023 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaswant-singh-v-state-of-u-p-53141 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Bail - Second Bail Application -Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 286, 506 & 120-B- Delay in Trial - Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 7- Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution -Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439-Constitution of India, Article 21- Applicant accused of double murder by firearm - Co-accused father granted bail by Supreme Court on grounds of advanced age - Applicant in custody since 16.09.2018 - Seven out of twentythree prosecution witnesses examined - All witnesses supported prosecution - No undue delay attributable to prosecution - Held, although prolonged incarceration may justify bail in exceptional cases, each bail application to be examined on its own facts - When trial is progressing and prosecution witnesses support case, no ground made out for bail merely on ground of co-accused's release or general delay - Bail rejected. (Paras 14,16,17, and 18) 370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES HELD: It is settled law that a precedent has to be understood and applied in light of the peculiar facts of that case. (Para 14) In the present case, the trial is proceeding. As many as seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of the present case are in no manner similar to the facts of the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant. (Para 16) The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancies in the St.ments of the prosecution witnesses. Occurrence of some minor discrepancies in the St.ments of witnesses is natural and it would not give any benefit to the applicant. There is no allegation that the prosecution is causing undue delay in trial. (Para 17) The applicant's father co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that he is a septuagenarian whereas the applicant is merely 42 years of age and this fact distinguishes the case of Komal Singh from the case of the applicant. (Para 18) Bail Application dismissed. (E-14) List of Cases cited: ## Text 2 All. Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. 369 process and exercise functions beyond his legally conferred authority. The assumption of such powers by an administrative officer, without any legal sanction, is a matter of grave concern. The Court has unequivocally disapproved of this conduct, emphasizing that the role of a Private Secretary is purely clerical and does not extend to making substantive changes to official documents, particularly those submitted before a court of law. Such actions not only undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings but also raise serious questions about the functioning and accountability of the Government Advocate's office. This incident calls for stringent corrective measures to ensure that procedural integrity is maintained and that unauthorized individuals do not interfere with matters of legal significance. 9. The events that have unfolded before this Court are both astonishing and deeply disconcerting, revealing a flagrant disregard for judicial authority and procedural integrity. The sheer negligence of responsible officials, coupled with unwarranted interference in legal proceedings, strikes at the very foundation of the justice system. Such egregious misconduct is utterly indefensible and demands immediate, uncompromising corrective action to prevent any future recurrence. 10. As prayed by learned Government Advocate, time is granted to file better affidavit. Put up this case on 12.03.2025, as fresh, for further hearing. The Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur shall remain present before this Court, on the next date. 11. Interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of listing. 12. Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to Mr. A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate, forthwith. ---------- (2025) 2 ILRA 369 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12654 of 2023 Jaswant Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Party: G.A. Criminal Law - Bail - Second Bail Application -Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 286, 506 & 120-B- Delay in Trial - Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 7- Applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution -Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439-Constitution of India, Article 21- Applicant accused of double murder by firearm - Co-accused father granted bail by Supreme Court on grounds of advanced age - Applicant in custody since 16.09.2018 - Seven out of twentythree prosecution witnesses examined - All witnesses supported prosecution - No undue delay attributable to prosecution - Held, although prolonged incarceration may justify bail in exceptional cases, each bail application to be examined on its own facts - When trial is progressing and prosecution witnesses support case, no ground made out for bail merely on ground of co-accused's release or general delay - Bail rejected. (Paras 14,16,17, and 18) 370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES HELD: It is settled law that a precedent has to be understood and applied in light of the peculiar facts of that case. (Para 14) In the present case, the trial is proceeding. As many as seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of the present case are in no manner similar to the facts of the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant. (Para 16) The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancies in the St.ments of the prosecution witnesses. Occurrence of some minor discrepancies in the St.ments of witnesses is natural and it would not give any benefit to the applicant. There is no allegation that the prosecution is causing undue delay in trial. (Para 17) The applicant's father co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that he is a septuagenarian whereas the applicant is merely 42 years of age and this fact distinguishes the case of Komal Singh from the case of the applicant. (Para 18) Bail Application dismissed. (E-14) List of Cases cited: 1. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs St. of Mah., (2024) 9 SCC 813 2. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs St. of U.P., 2023 (6) ALJ 19 3. U.O.I. Vs K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 4. X Vs St. of Raj., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 5. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao Vs St. of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 306 (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302, 286, 506, 120-B IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 14.09.2018 at 20.30 Hrs. against the applicant, his father Komal Siingh and one Ram Singh alleging that at about 05.15 on 14.09.2018 p.m. Komal Singh and Yashwant Singh (the applicant) shot at Bheem Singh and Arun Kumar Singh with a rifle and a revolver due to a dispute regarding a passage. The informant took the injured Arun Singh and Bheem Singh to the District Hospital where Arun Singh was declared dead and Bheem Singh died during treatment. 4. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5915 of 2021 filed by the applicant was rejected by means of an order dated 17.10.2022, wherein it is mentioned that the postmortem reports of the deceased disclose ante-mortem firearm injuries. The rifle, alleged to have been used in commission of the offence, has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. 5. The applicant had filed SLP (Crl.) No. 597/2023 against the rejection order dated 17.10.2022. The SLP was dismissed by means of an order dated 24.01.2023. However, while dismissing the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'the trial has been expedited by the High Court. In case of lack of meaningful progress, it is 2 All. Jaswant Singh Vs. State of U.P. 371 open to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh considering the progress of the trial'. 6. This second application has been filed on the ground that although the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2018, only 7 out of 23 witnesses have been examined. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused Komal Singh has been granted bail by means of an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2025. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: (2024) 9 SCC 813. He has also relied upon a decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P.: 2023 (6) ALJ 19. 8. Per contra, the learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that all the seven prosecution witnesses examined by the trial court have supported the prosecution case. There is no major discrepancy in their statements, which may give any benefit to the applicant. 9. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects of the matter: - (i) The appellant is in jail as an undertrial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses. 10. It was in the aforesaid peculiar factual background of the case, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (Supra) that: - "17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 11. In Bhanwar Singh (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the applicant in view of the following submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, which could not be disputed by the State Counsel: - I. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and had always cooperated with the investigations and joined the trial proceedings. II. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial. III. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that delay in the trial is also being occasioned by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons and execute coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. IV. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an 372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial. V. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. VI. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. (Emphasis added) 12. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb: (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 731], it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 13. However, in X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. * * * 16. ...It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed." 14. It is settled law that a precedent has to be understood and applied in light of the peculiar facts of that case. 15. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 306: the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "9. Each case, more particularly a criminal case, depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive..." 16. In the present case, the trial is proceeding. As many as seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and all of 2 All. Rakshpal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. 373 them have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of the present case are in no manner similar to the facts of the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 17. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Occurrence of some minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses is natural and it would not give any benefit to the applicant. There is no allegation that the prosecution is causing undue delay in trial. 18. The applicant's father co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that he is a septuagenarian whereas the applicant is merely 42 years of age and this fact distinguishes the case of Komal Singh from the case of the applicant. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the peculiar facts of the present case noted above do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on bail. The second bail of the applicant is accordingly rejected. ---------- (2025) 2 ILRA 373 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. Criminal Appeal No. 2806 of 1983 Rakshpal & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Kundan Singh, Sri A.K. Dikshit, Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari (A.C.) Counsel for the Opposite Party: D.G.A., A.G.A, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code-Section 394, 397 & 460-Clear eyewitness account in the present case-PW-1 and PW-3 being immediate family members are natural eyewitnesses of the occurrence-specific St.ment in respect of presence of surviving accused with country made pistol in his hand has also been made-firearm injury caused to the deceased. Appeal dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,(2002) 6 SCC 81, 2. Masalti Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 3. Darya Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1965 SC 328 4. Appabhai & anr.Vs St. of Gu., AIR 1988 SC 696 5. St. of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & ors., (2006) 4 SCC 512 6. Satbir Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 790 7. Jayabalan Vs U.T. of Pondicherry, 2010 (68) ACC 308 (SC) 8. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759 9. Baban Shankar Daphal & ors. Vs The St. of Mah., 2025 SCC Online SC 137 10. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Vs St. of Mah., (2023) 12 SCC 558 11. Pahalwan Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P., 2020 (6) ALJ 166 12. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2020 (1) ADJ 106 (DB)