Surendra Singh Tomar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113536

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8768 of 2025

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit flied on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.713 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.404 of 2025 after considering the fact that applicant is the father of the deceased and in the house his wife and other witnesses were present and during investigation, they stated against him.

¶10

He further submits that while rejecting the first bail application

¶11

of the applicant, this Court also observed that it is open for the applicant to renew his prayer for bail after the statements of witnesses recorded before the trial court and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the chargesheet there were total six witnesses of facts and all have been examined by the trial court and all the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile and their statements recorded before the trial court have been annexed alongwith the affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant second bail application.

¶12

He further submits that as all the witnesses of facts including alleged eye-witness have already turned hostile, therefore, chances of conviction of the applicant in the present matter is quite remote and his further detention will violate his fundamental right of life and liberty.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.08.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has already been dismissed on merit vide order dated 04.02.2025 but could not dispute the fact that during trial all the witnesses of facts, who were total six in numbers, did not support the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile.

¶15

He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.08.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 after considering the fact that applicant is father of the deceased and however, his wife, who was alleged eye-witness, did not support the prosecution case during trial but other family members of the applicant were also present in the house where incident occurred but it reflects, now all the witnesses of facts have been examined by the trial court and they also did not support the prosecution case and they have also been declared hostile by the trial court. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that chances of conviction of the applicant in the present matter appears to be quite remote, cannot be ruled out.

¶18

Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 24.08.2024 i.e. for last almost a year.

¶19

Further, law is settled, bail application should not be withheld for punitive purpose.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Surendra Singh Tomar , be released on bail

¶23

in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Sahu vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Hussain vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Mishra vs State of U.P.

Santosh Pal vs State of U.P.