# Nandan Singh Bisht v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No 1538 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nandan-singh-bisht-v-state-of-u-p-51000
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302,
120-B, 34 & 427 - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 30 - The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
-
Section
177
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
144
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 -
F.I.R.
lodged
with
allegations
that
farmers and labours of local area were
protesting
peacefully,
main
accused
reached on spot with four wheelers along
with unknown persons armed with
weapons - Said accused started firing and
moving ahead at high speed, crushed
crowd - Due to firearm injury, one person
died on spot, some pedestrians received
injuries - In said incident, four farmers
died. (Para 19, 20)
Contention by applicants, they are not
named in FIR, their name came up during
investigation
in
statement
of
eyewitnesses - Cross-version to instant case
was
registered
by
co-accused
with
allegations that protestors attacked them
- Postmortem report from side of accused
persons, indicates cause of death was
antemortem injuries received by blunt
object, as they were beaten to death by
farmers. (Para 21, 22, 23)

Case was later on modified from gunshot
injuries to injuries caused due to crushing
by vehicles - Out of 114 witnesses, only
seven examined. (Para 26, 30)

Held, regarding criminal antecedents, it
was not case of St.that applicants might
adversely influence investigation or might
intimidate witnesses - No exceptional
circumstances shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, bail on ground of criminal
antecedent can't be deny. (Para 53)

Cross-version
to
present
case,
acknowledged by both parties - Main
accused, granted bail by Supreme Court -
Significant number of witnesses to be
examined, no likelihood that trial will
conclude in near future - Applicants have
not
misused
interim
bail
previously
granted. (Para 56)

Bail applications allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
215

12. Considering the entire facts an
circumstances of the case, there is no scope
of interference against the impugned orders
passed by Consolidation Authorities in the
Chak allotment proceedings.

13. The writ-petition is dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 215
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No 1538 of 2023
Alongwith other connected cases

Nandan Singh Bisht ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vaibhav Kalia, Vidhu Bhushan Kalia

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Ajai Kumar, Vivek Kumar Rai

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 302,
120-B, 34 & 427 - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 30 - The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
-
Section
177
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
144
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 -
F.I.R.
lodged
with
allegations
that
farmers and labours of local area were
protesting
peacefully,
main
accused
reached on spot with four wheelers along
with unknown persons armed with
weapons - Said accused started firing and
moving ahead at high speed, crushed
crowd - Due to firearm injury, one person
died on spot, some pedestrians received
injuries - In said incident, four farmers
died. (Para 19, 20)
Contention by applicants, they are not
named in FIR, their name came up during
investigation
in
statement
of
eyewitnesses - Cross-version to instant case
was
registered
by
co-accused
with
allegations that protestors attacked them
- Postmortem report from side of accused
persons, indicates cause of death was
antemortem injuries received by blunt
object, as they were beaten to death by
farmers. (Para 21, 22, 23)

Case was later on modified from gunshot
injuries to injuries caused due to crushing
by vehicles - Out of 114 witnesses, only
seven examined. (Para 26, 30)

Held, regarding criminal antecedents, it
was not case of St.that applicants might
adversely influence investigation or might
intimidate witnesses - No exceptional
circumstances shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, bail on ground of criminal
antecedent can't be deny. (Para 53)

Cross-version
to
present
case,
acknowledged by both parties - Main
accused, granted bail by Supreme Court -
Significant number of witnesses to be
examined, no likelihood that trial will
conclude in near future - Applicants have
not
misused
interim
bail
previously
granted. (Para 56)

Bail applications allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash & ors., (2004) 13
SCC 292, (Para 23, 24)

2. U.O.I.Vs K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712

3. Padam Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC
621, (Para 5)

4. Vijayee Singh Vs St. of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190

5. Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha Vs St. of U.P., (1992)
SCC OnLine All 871, (Para 60)

6. Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40,
(Para 18)
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr.2022
INSC 690, (Para 94, 98)

8. Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs C.B.I. &
anr.(2022) SCC OnLine SC 695

9. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs St. of Mah. &
anr.2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693

10. R.D. Upadhyay Vs St. of A.P. & ors., (1996) 3
SCC 422

11. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs U.O.I., (2018) 11
SCC 1, (Para 19, 24)

12.
Manish
Sisodia
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595

13. Prabhakar Tewari Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2020)
11 SCC 648
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. The case has been heard through
Video Conferencing from Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Vaibhav Kalia (in bail
no.1538/2023), Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava
(in
bail
nos.11541/2022,
14110/2022,
14113/2022 & 14164/2022), Sri Manish
Mani Sharma (in bail nos.1575/2023,
1640/2023,
1920/2023,
1998/2023,
2066/2023, 2090/2023
& 2316/2023),
learned counsels for the applicants and Sri
Ajai Kumar, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned
counsels for the informant as well as Ms.
Parul Kant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

First Bail Applications Moved On
Behalf Of The Applicants:-

3. Applicant- Nandan Singh Bisht
went to jail on 19.10.2021 in Case Crime
No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 326, 302, 120-B, 34, 427 IPC,
Section 30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of
Motor
Vehicle
Act,
Police
Station-
Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. Applicant- Latif alias Kale
went to jail on 13.10.2021 in Case Crime
No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 326/34,
427/34 IPC, Section 30 of Arms Act and
Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police
Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur
Kheri.

5. Applicant- Satyam Tripathi alias
Satya Prakash Tripathi went to jail on
19.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of
2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120-B, 307, 326/34, 427/34 IPC, Section
30 of Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor
Vehicle Act, Police Station- Tikuniya,
District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

6. Applicant- Shekhar Bharti went
to jail on 12.10.2021 in Case Crime
No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 120-B, 307, 326/34, 427/34 IPC,
Section 30 Arms Act and Section 177 of
Motor
Vehicle
Act,
Police
Station-
Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

7. Applicant- Dharmendra Singh
Banjara went to jail on 18.10.2021 in Case
Crime No.0219 of 2021, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 34, 302, 120-B,
427 IPC and Section 177 of Motor Vehicle
Act, Police Station- Tikoniya, District-
Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. Applicant- Ashish Pandey went
to jail on 18.10.2021 in Case Crime
No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 326, 34, 302, 120-B, 427 IPC and
Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police
Station- Tikoniya, District- Lakhimpur
Kheri.
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
217
9. Applicant- Rinkoo Rana went to
jail on 18.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
326, 34, 302, 120-B, 427 IPC and Section
177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station-
Tikoniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

10. Applicant- Ullas Kumar
Trivedi @ Mohit Trivedi went to jail on
18.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219 of
2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
326, 34, 302, 120-B, 427 IPC and Section
177 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station-
Tikoniya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

Second Bail Applications Moved
On Behalf Of The Applicant:-

11. Applicant- Ankit Das, went to
jail on 13.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120-B, 307, 326/34, 427 IPC, Section 30 of
Arms Act and Section 177 of Motor
Vehicles Act, Police Station- Tikuniya,
District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

12. Applicant- Lavkush, went to
jail on 18.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
326, 34, 302, 120-B & 427 of IPC and
Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, Police
Station- Tikuniya, District- Lakhimpur
Kheri.

13. Applicant- Sumit Jaisawal
went to jail on 18.10.2021 in Case Crime
No.0219 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 326, 34, 302, 120-B, 427 of IPC,
Sections 3/25 & 3/27 of Arms Act and
Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, Police
Station- Tikoniya, District- Lakhimpur
Kheri.

14. Applicant- Shishupal went to
jail on 18.10.2021 in Case Crime No.0219
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
326, 34, 302, 120-B, 427 of IPC and
Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, Police
Station- Tikoniya, District- Lakhimpur
Kheri.

15. First bail applications of above
mentioned four applicants, namely, Ankit
Das,
Lavkush,
Sumit
Jaisawal
and
Shishupal were rejected by a common
order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 2986 of 2022.

16. In the instant application, the
applicants, namely, Nandan Singh Bisht,
Latif alias Kale, Satyam Tripathi alias
Satya Prakash Tripathi, Shekhar Bharti,
Ashish Pandey, Rinkoo Rana, Ankit Das
and Sumit Jaisawal were granted interim
bail by a common order dated 14.02.2023
passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court.

17. So far as the other applicants,
namely, Dharmendra Singh Banjara, Ullas
Kumar Trivedi @ Mohit Trivedi and
Lavkush are concerned, interim bail were
granted
to
them
vide
orders
dated
28.02.2023 passed in respective bail
applications.
The
applicant,
namely,
Shishupal was granted interim bail vide
order dated 20.03.2023.

18. Since all the aforesaid bail
applications are relating to the same crime
(FIR), therefore, they are being disposed of
by a common order.

PROSECUTION STORY:

19. As per FIR, named accused
Ashish Mishra @ Monu in his Thar
Mahindra vehicle followed by two other
vehicles, came to the place of incident at a
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
high speed and killed the farmers by firing
at them indiscriminately.

20. On the written complaint of
Jagjeet Singh s/o Hari Singh, the F.I.R. was
lodged with the allegations that on 3rd
October, 2021, farmers and labours of the
local area were protesting peacefully at
Agrasen
Inter
College
Play
Ground,
Tikuniya, Kheri for showing the black flag
to State Home Minister, Government of
India, Mr. Ajay Mishra ''Teny' and Deputy
Chief Minister Mr. Keshav Prasad Maurya,
Government of U.P. It is further alleged in
the F.I.R. that at about 3 p.m., accused
Ashish Mishra @ Monu reached on the
spot with 3-4 vehicles (four wheelers)
along with 15-20 unknown persons armed
with weapons. Ashish Mishra @ Monu,
who was sitting on the left side in the Thar
Mahindra vehicle, started firing and the
vehicle, which was moving ahead at a high
speed,
crushed
the
crowd.
Further
allegation made in the F.I.R. is that due to
firearm injury, one Gurvinder Singh s/o
Sukhvinder Singh died on the spot.
Thereafter, the two vehicles including the
vehicle of accused Ashish Mishra @ Monu
overturned in the side ditch of the road, as a
result, some pedestrians also received
injuries. Thereafter, Ashish Mishra @
Monu ran away from the spot by taking the
cover of his firing. In the said incident, four
farmers died, namely, (i) Gurvinder Singh
s/o
Sukhvinder
Singh
r/o
Motronia,
Nanpara, (ii) Daljeet Singh s/o Hari Singh
r/o Village Banjara Tanda, Nanpara, (iii)
Nakshatra Singh s/o Sukkha Singh r/o
Village Nandapurva Dhaurahara, Tehsil
Kheri and (iv) Lavpreet Singh s/o Satnam
Singh r/o Chaukhadafarm Palia Kalan,
Kheri.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT:
21. The applicants are not named
in the FIR. The names of the applicants
have come up later on during the course of
investigation in the statement of eyewitnesses.

22. There is a cross-version to the
instant case which was registered as FIR
No.220 of 2021 by accused Sumit Jaiswal
with the allegations that it were the
protestors who had attacked them and
committed murder of Hari Om Mishra,
Shubham Mishra and Shyam Sundar and
grievously injured three others.

23. The postmortem report of the
deceased persons from the side of accused
persons,
namely,
Hari
Om
Mishra,
Shubham Mishra and Shyam Sundar,
categorically indicates that the cause of
death was antemortem injuries received by
hard and blunt object, as such they were
beaten to death by the farmers.

24. The FIR does not mention the
fact of aforesaid murder of three persons in
the instant FIR No.219 of 2021. The
absence of mentioning the factum of
murder of three persons and injuring equal
number of persons from the side of
applicants goes against the prosecution
story.

25. It is true that four persons from
the side of informant have lost their lives
coupled by the fact that an independent
person who was a journalist has also been
put to death in the instant case, but it is an
admitted fact that three persons from the
side of applicants have also died, as such,
at this point of time it cannot be ascertained
as to which party was the aggressor one.

26. The prosecution has not come
with clean hands as the case was later on
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
219
modified from being that of gunshot
injuries to that of injuries caused due to
crushing by vehicles. It is possible that the
driver might have panicked due to rage of
the public at large. The case is of mob
lynching and there was so hue and cry at
the place of occurrence that there was no
chance of anybody hearing the accused
Ashish Mishra @ Monu saying "teach them
a lesson", as such, their statements cannot
be relied upon. No overt act has been
assigned individually to the applicants.

27. One Punto car from the side of
applicants was also ransacked by the
protestors with an ulterior motive which
shows their defiance of law and also the
fact that it has not been explained as to how
the said car was damaged.

28. The provisions of Section 144
Cr.P.C. were applicable to both the parties,
as such, the procession of farmers cannot
be termed to be peaceful.

29. The FIR was instituted under
several sections along with sections 279, 338
and 304-A I.P.C., but the said sections have
been deleted later on by the Investigating
Agency with the permission of C.J.M.
concerned, which implies that the vehicles
were being driven at a normal speed.

30. The trial is moving at a snail's
pace as out of a list of 114 witnesses, only
seven have been examined so far. There is
no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near
future. The fundamental rights of the
applicants enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stand violated as the
applicants were incarcerated in jail for
more than one year.

31. The defence is not required to
prove its version beyond reasonable doubt
but has to adduce evidence which has to be
seen by the Courts on preponderance and
probabilities.
Thus,
there
is
every
possibility that the driver of the vehicles
might have panicked and crashed, thereby
causing death of four persons from the side
of protesters and a journalist.

32. Much reliance has been made
on the bail order of the main accused
person Ashish Misha @ Monu who was
earlier on enlarged on interim bail by the
Supreme Court and the same order was
made absolute vide order dated 22.7.20241,
which reads as under:-

"1. The petitioner was
granted interim regular bail vide
an order dated 25.01.2023 subject
to various conditions including that
he shall not stay in the State of
Uttar Pradesh or in NCT of Delhi
during the period of interim bail.
Other usual conditions were also
imposed
upon
the
petitioner.
Subsequently, the condition of not
staying in NCT of Delhi was
relaxed
vide
an
order
dated
26.09.2023
taking
into
consideration the ailment of the
petitioner's mother and the fact that
he was also required to get his
daughter operated in Delhi.
2. During the course of
hearing, it is stated by Mr.
Siddharth Dave, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that there
is a change of circumstances since
the petitioner's father is no longer
an elected Member of Parliament
or a Minister in the Union
Government.
There
is
no
residential
accommodation
available to the petitioner or his
family to stay in Delhi. He,
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordingly,
seeks
further
modification
of
the
condition
imposed
in
the
order
dated
25.01.2023.
3. We have heard Mr.
Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
for the complainant/farmers with
reference to the prayer made by the
petitioner.
4.
Taking
into
consideration all the attending
circumstances, the interim bail
granted to the petitioner vide order
dated 25.01.2023 is made absolute
subject to the following conditions:
(i)
The
petitioner
is
permitted to stay either in NCT of
Delhi or in Lucknow city in the
State of Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) The petitioner shall,
however, abide by the terms and
conditions imposed vide order
dated 25.01.2023 and shall be
entitled to go to the place where the
trial is pending a day prior to the
date fixed in the trial case.
5. Similarly, the interim
bail granted to Guruwinder Singh,
S/o
Gurmej
Singh;
Kamaljeet
Singh, S/o Iqbal Singh, Gurupreet
Singh, S/o Kulwinder Singh and
Vichitra Singh, S/o Lakhwinder
Singh, in FIR No.220 of 2021 is
also made absolute.

6. Adverting to the main
case,
we
are
informed
by
Ms.Garima Prashad, Sr.Additional
Advocate General for the State of
U.P. that out of 114 witnesses, 7
have been examined so far. In our
considered
view,
the
trial
proceedings are required to be
expedited. This can only be ensured
provided that (i) the Trial Court
fixes a schedule for conducting the
trial; (ii) the witnesses to be
examined on the fixed date are
identified
in
advance;
(iii)
necessary directions are issued to
the prosecution/State Authorities to
ensure the presence of those
witnesses; and (iv) counsel for the
parties extend full cooperation to
the
trial
in
examining/crossexamining the witnesses.
7. We, accordingly, direct
the learned Trial Court to fix a
schedule, keeping in view the
pendency of other important or
time-bound matters in the said
Court, however, prioritising the
subject trial. The Public Prosecutor
shall inform the Trial Court the
number of witnesses (five witnesses
or so for one day), who shall be
produced on the date fixed. The
State Authorities shall also ensure
their presence before the Trial
Court on the date fixed. Counsel
for
the
petitioner
or
those
representing other co-accused shall
extend full cooperation to the Trial
Court in this regard.
8. The Trial Court shall
send a Status Report to this Court
before the next date of hearing.
9. Post the matter for
hearing on 30.09.2024."

33. Thus, there is no likelihood of
the conclusion of trial in near future, as
such the applicants are entitled for bail.

34. The applicants have right of
private defence as contemplated under
Section 97/103 I.P.C. as three persons from
the side of applicants have also been put to
death and three others have sustained
grievous injuries.
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
221
35. No test identification parade
was conducted as per the provisions of
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, thus
nominating
the
accused
persons
is
politically motivated.

36. The applicants have not
misused the interim bail granted earlier on,
as such, there is no likelihood of them
misusing the bail and are not at all a "flight
risk".

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
OPPOSITE PARTY:

37. The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that five innocent
persons have been put to death by the
applicants and named accused person
Ashish Mishra @ Monu. The eye-witnesses
have nominated the applicants, as such they
are not entitled for bail.

38. It is not disputed that criminal
history
of
the
applicants
has
been
explained.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE:

39. Learned A.G.A. has also
opposed the bail application on the ground
that the argument advanced on behalf of
applicants that no one sustained any
gunshot injury carries no weight as the
informant is not an eye-witness to the
incident. It is settled law established by the
Supreme Court that FIR is not an
encyclopedia of events. The applicants
have been identified by all the other eyewitnesses.

40. The fact that the criminal
history of the applicants has been explained
and also that they have not misused the
liberty of bail is also not disputed.

CASE LAW:

41. The Full Bench of Supreme
Court in the case of Upkar Singh vs. Ved
Prakash & others2 has observed in
paragraphs 23 & 24 as follows:

"23. Be that as it may, if the
law laid down by this Court in T.T.
Antony case is to be accepted as
holding that a second complaint in
regard to the same incident filed as
a counter-complaint is prohibited
under the Code then, in our
opinion, such conclusion would
lead to serious consequences. This
will be clear from the hypothetical
example given hereinbelow i.e. if in
regard to a crime committed by the
real accused he takes the first
opportunity
to
lodge
a
false
complaint
and
the
same
is
registered by the jurisdictional
police then the aggrieved victim of
such crime will be precluded from
lodging a complaint giving his
version of the incident in question,
consequently he will be deprived of
his legitimated right to bring the
real accused to books. This cannot
be the purport of the Code.

24.
We
have
already
noticed that in the T.T. Antony case
this Court did not consider the
legal right of an aggrieved person
to
file
counterclaim,
on
the
contrary from the observations
found in the said judgment it
clearly indicates that filing a
counter-complaint is permissible."
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
42. The Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb3 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."

43. The Supreme Court in Padam
Singh vs. State of U.P.4 has held:

"5. ....when the prosecution
does
not
explain
the
injury
sustained by the accused at about
the time of the occurrence or in the
course of occurrence, the court can
draw
the
inference
that
the
prosecution has suppressed the
genesis
and
origin
of
the
occurrence and has thus, not
presented the true version. It is also
well settled that where the evidence
consists of interested or inimical
witnesses, then, non-explanation of
the injury on the accused by the
prosecution
assume
greater
importance......"

44. The Supreme Court in Vijayee
Singh vs. State of U.P.5 has held:

10. It was further observed
that:
"... in a murder case, the
non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused at about
the time of the occurrence or in the
course of altercation is a very
important circumstance from which
the court can draw the following
inferences:
(1) that the prosecution has
suppressed the genesis and the
origin of the occurrence and has
thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who
have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most
material point and therefore their
evidence is unreliable.
(3) that in case there is a
defence version which explains the
injuries on the person of the
accused it is rendered probable so
as
to
throw
doubt
on
the
prosecution case."

45. This Court in the case of
Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P.6
has observed as follows:

"60. As regards the second
part of the referred question
whether it is duty of the co-accused
to disclose in his bail application
the fact that on an earlier occasion
the bail application of another coaccused in the same case has been
rejected. The prior rejection of the
bail application of one of the
accused cannot preclude the court
from granting bail to another
accused whose case has not been
considered at the earlier occasion.
The accused who comes up with the
prayer for bail and who had no
opportunity of being heard or
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
223
placing material before the Court
at the time when the bail of another
accused was heard and rejected,
cannot be prejudiced in any other
manner by such rejection."

46. In the case of Sanjay Chandra
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation7, the
Supreme Court has held:

"18. In his reply, Shri.
Jethmalani would submit that as
the presumption of innocence is the
privilege of every accused, there is
also
a
presumption
that
the
appellants would not tamper with
the witnesses if they are enlarged
on bail, especially in the facts of
the case, where the appellants have
cooperated with the investigation.
In recapitulating his submissions,
the
learned
senior
counsel
contended that there are two
principles for the grant of bail -
firstly, if there is no prima facie
case, and secondly, even if there is
a prima facie case, if there is no
reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering with the witnesses or
evidence or absconding from the
trial, the accused are entitled to
grant of bail pending trial. He
would submit that since both the
conditions are satisfied in this case,
the appellants should be granted
bail.
xxxxx

47. In the case of Satender Kumar
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another8, the Supreme Court has laid
down as follows:

"94. Criminal courts in
general with the trial court in
particular are the guardian angels
of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in
the Code, has to be preserved,
protected, and enforced by the
criminal courts. Any conscious
failure by the criminal courts would
constitute an affront to liberty. It is
the pious duty of the criminal court
to zealously guard and keep a
consistent vision in safeguarding
the constitutional values and ethos.
A criminal court must uphold the
constitutional
thrust
with
responsibility mandated on them by
acting akin to a high priest.
xxxxxx
"98.
Uniformity
and
certainty in the decisions of the
court
are
the
foundations
of
judicial
dispensation.
Persons
accused with same offence shall
never be treated differently either
by the same court or by the same or
different courts. Such an action
though by an exercise of discretion
despite being a judicial one would
be a grave affront to Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution of
India."

48. The Supreme Court in its
judgment
passed
in
Indrani
Pratim
Mukerjea
vs.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation and Another9 has granted
bail to the accused as the trial was unlikely
to be concluded in near future due to huge
witnesses remaining to be testified. The
same view has been expressed by the
Supreme Court in the judgment of Javed
Gulam
Nabi
Shaikh
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra and Another10.

49. Vide its judgment dated
19.3.1996 passed in R.D. Upadhyay vs.
State of A.P. and Others11 taking into
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration the right to speedy trial of the
accused, the under trials languishing in
several jails were ordered to be released
who were incarcerated for a period of one
year or more.

50. The principle that bail is the
rule and jail an exception has been
emphasised in the judgment of the Supreme
Court passed in Nikesh Tarachand Shah
vs.
Union of
India12. The
relevant
paragraphs
are
being
reproduced
as
follows:

19. In Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia
v.
State
of
Punjab
[Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980
SCC (Cri) 465], the purpose of
granting bail is set out with great
felicity as follows: (SCC pp. 58688, paras 27-30)
"27. It is not necessary to
refer to decisions which deal with
the right to ordinary bail because
that right does not furnish an exact
parallel to the right to anticipatory
bail. It is, however, interesting that
as long back as in 1924 it was held
by the High Court of Calcutta in
Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re
[Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re,
1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 : AIR
1924 Cal 476 : 1924 Cri LJ 732] ,
AIR pp. 479-80 that the object of
bail is to secure the attendance of
the accused at the trial, that the
proper test to be applied in the
solution of the question whether
bail should be granted or refused is
whether it is probable that the
party will appear to take his trial
and that it is indisputable that bail
is not to be withheld as a
punishment. In two other cases
which,
significantly,
are
the
"Meerut
Conspiracy
cases"
observations are to be found
regarding the right to bail which
deserve a special mention. In K.N.
Joglekar v. Emperor [K.N. Joglekar
v. Emperor, 1931 SCC OnLine All
60 : AIR 1931 All 504 : 1932 Cri
LJ 94] it was observed, while
dealing with Section 498 which
corresponds to the present Section
439 of the Code, that it conferred
upon the Sessions Judge or the
High Court wide powers to grant
bail which were not handicapped
by the restrictions in the preceding
Section 497 which corresponds to
the present Section 437. It was
observed by the Court that there
was no hard-and-fast rule and no
inflexible principle governing the
exercise of the discretion conferred
by Section 498 and that the only
principle which was established
was that the discretion should be
exercised judiciously. In Emperor v.
H.L. Hutchinson [Emperor v. H.L.
Hutchinson, 1931 SCC OnLine All
14 : AIR 1931 All 356 : 1931 Cri
LJ 1271], AIR p. 358 it was said
that it was very unwise to make an
attempt to lay down any particular
rules which will bind the High
Court, having regard to the fact
that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the court unfettered.
According to the High Court, the
variety of cases that may arise from
time to time cannot be safely
classified and it is dangerous to
make an attempt to classify the
cases and to say that in particular
classes a bail may be granted but
not in other classes. It was
observed that the principle to be
11 All. Nandan Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P.
225
deduced from the various sections
in the Criminal Procedure Code
was that grant of bail is the rule
and refusal is the exception. An
accused
person
who
enjoys
freedom is in a much better
position to look after his case and
to properly defend himself than if
he
were
in
custody.
As
a
presumably innocent person he is
therefore entitled to freedom and
every opportunity to look after his
own case. A presumably innocent
person must have his freedom to
enable
him
to
establish
his
innocence.
28. Coming nearer home, it
was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State
[Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State,
(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 115] that: (SCC p. 242, para
1)
'1. ... the issue [of bail] is
one of liberty, justice, public safety
and burden of the public treasury,
all of which insist that a developed
jurisprudence of bail is integral to
a
socially
sensitised
judicial
process. ... After all, personal
liberty of an accused or convict is
fundamental,
suffering
lawful
eclipse only in terms of "procedure
established by law". The last four
words of Article 21 are the life of
that human right.'
29. In Gurcharan Singh v.
State (UT of Delhi) [Gurcharan
Singh v. State (UT of Delhi), (1978)
1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it
was observed by Goswami, J., who
spoke for the Court, that: (SCC p.
129, para 29)
'29. ... There cannot be an
inexorable formula in the matter of
granting
bail.
The
facts
and
circumstances of each case will
govern the exercise of judicial
discretion in granting or cancelling
bail.'
30.
In
American
Jurisprudence (2nd, Vol. 8, p. 806,
para 39), it is stated:
'Where the granting of bail
lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is
regulated, to a large extent, by the
facts and circumstances of each
particular case. Since the object of
the detention or imprisonment of
the accused is to secure his
appearance and submission to the
jurisdiction and the judgment of the
court, the primary inquiry is
whether a recognizance or bond
would effect that end.'
It is thus clear that the
question whether to grant bail or
not depends for its answer upon a
variety
of
circumstances,
the
cumulative effect of which must
enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be
treated as of universal validity or
as necessarily justifying the grant
or refusal of bail."
xxxx
24. Article 21 is the Ark of
the Covenant so far as the
Fundamental Rights Chapter of the
Constitution is concerned. It deals
with nothing less sacrosanct than
the rights of life and personal
liberty of the citizens of India and
other persons. It is the only article
in the Fundamental Rights Chapter
(along with Article 20) that cannot
be suspended even in an emergency
[see
Article
359(1)
of
the
Constitution]. At present, Article 21
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is the repository of a vast number
of
substantive
and
procedural
rights post Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]
.

51. Reiterating the aforesaid view
the Supreme Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement13
has again emphasised that the very wellsettled 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".

52. In the case of Prabhakar
Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another14, the
Supreme Court has observed that pendency
of several criminal cases against an accused
by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of
bail.

CONCLUSION:

53. In so far as criminal
antecedents
of
the
applicants
are
concerned, it is not the case of the State
that applicants might tamper with or
otherwise
adversely
influence
the
investigation, or that they might intimidate
witnesses before or during the trial. The
State has also not placed any material that
applicants in past attempted to evade the
process of law. If the accused is otherwise
found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be
denied bail only on the ground of criminal
history, no exceptional circumstances on
the basis of criminal antecedents have been
shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the
Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to
the applicants just on the ground of
criminal antecedent. The instant case falls
within the parameters of Prabhakar Tiwari
(supra).

54. It is an admitted fact that both
the parties did not observe restraint, which
led to unfortunate death of eight persons.
As per the arguments tendered by both the
parties, five persons (four farmers and one
journalist) from the side of the first
informant/victim are said to have died in
the incident, and three persons are said to
have been put to death from the side of the
applicant. In addition to it, 13 persons
sustained
injuries
from
the
side
of
informant and 3 from the side of applicant.

55. 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 AGA or the counsel for informant.

56. In light of the circumstances
and the following considerations:

(i). There is cross-version
to the present case, acknowledged
by both parties;
(ii). The Supreme Court has
made absolute the interim bail
granted to four accused persons in
the cross-version;
(iii) The main accused,
Ashish Mishra @ Monu, named in
the F.I.R., was granted bail by the
Supreme Court on 22.07.2024. The
applicants' case is at a better
footing than his, as they were not
named
in
the
F.I.R.;
11 All. Mukesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
227
(iv) A significant number of
witnesses remain to be examined,
and there is no likelihood that the
trial will conclude in the near
future;
(v) There is no indication
that the applicants have misused
the interim bail previously granted;
(vi)
The
applicants'
antecedents have been sufficiently
explained.
The Court finds it to be a
fit case for bail. Accordingly, the
bail
applications
are
hereby
allowed.

57. Let the applicants- Nandan
Singh Bisht, Latif Alias Kale, Satyam
Tripathi Alias Satya Prakash Tripathi,
Shekhar Bharti, Dharmendra Singh
Banjara, Ashish Pandey, Rinkoo Rana,
Ullas
Kumar
Trivedi
Alias
Mohit
Trivedi, Ankit Das, Lavkush, Sumit
Jaisawal and Shishupal involved in
aforementioned case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions.

(i) The applicants shall not
tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicants shall
remain present, in person, before
the Trial Court on dates fixed for
(1) opening of the case, (2) framing
of charge and (3) recording of
statement
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial
Court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with
law.

58. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and
residence proof of the applicants and
sureties be verified by the court concerned
before the bonds are accepted.

59.
It
is
made
clear
that
observations made in granting bail to the
applicants shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 227
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos
6849 of 2024, 6901 of 2024, 6946 of 2024 &
7113 of 2024
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Mukesh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Girijesh Kumar Gupta, Sri Shiv Shankar Pd.
Gupta, Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Naveen Kumar Srivastava

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 438- Power of
anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in
character and it is to be exercised only in
exceptional cases where the person is falsely
implicated. Though in many cases it was held
that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory