Manoj Ram Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Sections 105, 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.08.2024, whereas the first information report was lodged by Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar on 28.08.2024 under Section 103(1), 123, 309(4) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer the applicant was arrested on 28.08.2024 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. During the course of investigation the case was converted into Sections 105, 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S. False recovery of a handbag, a mobile phone, an ATM card, shirt, T-shirt, Aadhar Card and other articles has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Thereafter, the photograph of the applicant was published in the newspapers and on the basis of the newspaper publication, two witnesses, namely, Surendra and Dinesh Pal stated that the person, whose photograph was published in the newspaper, had thrown the body of the deceased on the footpath. It is contended that the said statements are wholly unreliable. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police

¶12

BAIL No. 13918 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

authorities. It is also contended that the CCTV footage merely shows that the applicant was travelling in an auto rickshaw, which in no manner connects the applicant with the alleged offence. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, as per the chargesheet the prosecution proposes to examine nineteen witnesses to bring home the charges. At present, the statement of the informant has only been recorded. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has always cooperated with the investigation, and has attended the trial. The applicant never influenced the witnesses nor tampered with the evidence. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses has led to prolonged incarceration of the applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in conclusion of trial. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.08.2024 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶15

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer the applicant was arrested on 28.08.2024. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, as per the chargesheet the prosecution proposes to examine nineteen witnesses to bring home the charges. At present, the statement of the informant has only been recorded. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses have led to prolonged incarceration of the applicant. Even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and eight months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the

¶17

BAIL No. 13918 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant- Manoj Ram, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶21