IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 17.03.2025 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad Judicature at
Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5344 of
2024)
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE …PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. …RESPONDENT

Crl. M.P. No. of 2025

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FORM FILING O/T

OF THE ANNEXURE P-1 AND P-2.

WITH

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

 INDEX

1. Particulars of Page No. of part to Rem

Documents which it belongs arks
(i) Court fees (iii) (v)
1. Office Report on A A
Limitation
2. Listing Proforma A1 – A2 A1- A-2
3. Cover page of Paper Book A-3
4. Index of Record of A-4
Proceedings
5. Limitation Report A-5
prepared by the Registry
6. Defect List A-6
7.Note Sheet NS.1 to .
8.Synopsis & List of Dates B–O
9.The Certified copy 1–4
Impugned Order dated
17.03.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad Judicature at
Lucknow in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.
5344 of 2024.
(Impugned Order)
10. Special Leave Petition with 5 – 18
Affidavit
11. ANNEXURE P-1 19 – 30
The true translated copy
of FIR No. 211/2015 dated
25.06.2015.
12 ANNEXURE P-2 31 – 36
The true translated copy
of relevant portion list of
witnesses annexed with
chargesheet.
13 ANNEXURE P-3 37 – 38
 The true copy of the order
dated 14.06.2016 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 4818 of 2016
14 ANNEXURE P-04 39 – 40
true copy of the order
dated 08.07.2016 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 1054 of 2016

15 ANNEXURE P-05 41 – 42
The true copy of The order
dated 14.07.2016 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 5926 of 2016
16 ANNEXURE P-06 43 –44
The true copy of the order
dated 21.07.2016 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 6313 of 2016
17 ANNEXURE P-07 45 –47
The true copy of the order
dated 06.08.2024 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in
SLP (Crl.) No. 5315/2024
18 ANNEXURE P-08 48 – 50
The true copy of order
dated 24.02.2025 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in
SLP (Crl.) No. 1825/2025
19 ANNEXURE P-09 51 - 54
The true copy of the order
dated 17.03.2025 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 10705 of
2024.
20 ANNEXURE P-10 55 –59
The true copy of the order
dated 17.03.2025 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 12563 of 2024
21 Crl. M.P. No. of 2024 60-62

AN APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION FORM
FILING O/T OF THE
ANNEXURE P-1 to P-2.
22 Filing Memo 63
23 Vakalatnama 64
24 Memo of Parties 65
25 Detention Certificate 66 - 68
Along with Translated
Copy.
 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE …PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. …RESPONDENT
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition/s is/are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay no in

filing against the Impugned Order dated 17.03.2025
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad
Judicature at Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 5344 of 2024 and hence no Application
for Condonation of Delay has been filed.
3. There is a delay of ____ days in refilling the Petition and

Petition for condonation of ____ day’s delay in refilling

has been filled.

BRANCH/SECTION OFFICER
New Delhi
Dated: 08.04.2025
 A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
Section
High Court of Allahabad
Judicature at Lucknow
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
Central Act :
Section/Article :
Central Rule : NIL
Rule No (s) : NIL
State Act : NIL
Section : NIL
State Rule (s) : NIL
Rule No(s) : NIL
Impugned Interim Order : NIL.
Impugned Final Order :. Order dated 17.03.2025

High Court : High Court of Allahabad

Judicature at Lucknow
Name of Judges : Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J
Tribunal / Authority : NIL
1. Nature of Matter : Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/Petitioner: Haribansh Singh @ Bhoore
(b) E Mail ID : NIL
(c) Mobile Phone No: NIL

3. (a) Respondent : State of U.P.

(b) E Mail ID : NIL
(c) Mobile Phone No. : NIL

4. (a) Main Category Classification : 14

(b)Sub Classification : 1407
5. Not to be listed before: N.A.
6. a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any & case
details: No similar
matter disposed off.
 B
SYNOPSIS

The present Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred by

the petitioner (accused no.1), aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 5344 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble High Court

has been pleased to dismiss the bail application filed by the

petitioner on the basis of gravity of the offence and the post

mortem report of three persons who have died in a daylight

murder which took place inside the police out post, no one from

the accused side has received any injury which falsifies their

case of cross-firing and the manner in which it has been

executed, the role assigned to the petitioner.

In this regard, it is further submitted that the Hon’ble High

Court has seriously erred in not appreciating the fact that the

petitioner, as on the date of impugned order, has spent more

than nine and half years in incarceration as an undertrial

prisoner. The period of incarceration of the petitioner at

present, is more than nine and half years. The trial is still in

progress and the statements of defence witnesses are being

recorded and examined. Since there are 13 accused persons,

 C
there may be large number of defence witnesses to be examined

which may take considerable amount of time. It is also

submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration for more

than nine and half years due to which he has lost his social

connections with the people who could be presented before the

Ld. Trial Court as defence witnesses in his favour therefore, the

petitioner needs to be enlarged on bail to enable him to

effectively exercise his right of defence which is an essential

ingredient of right to fair trial.

It is respectfully submitted that the present is a case of over

implication wherein the entire family of the petitioner including

his brother and sons has deliberately been framed.

It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves to be

released in view of the observations of this Hon’ble Court in

several matters where it has been held that a prolonged pre-

trial detention should not result in incarceration becoming

punishment without trial and such detention violates

fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the

Constitution. This Hon’ble Court in the matter of Tapas Kumar

Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 has

observed as under “If an accused is to get a final verdict after

 D
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial

prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a

speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been

infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons - who

remain innocent until proven guilty - can also be significant.”

The wife of the petitioner is severely ill and there is nobody to

take care of her therefore, the petitioner needs to be enlarged

on bail to take care of his family.

It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 06.08.2024

passed by this Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5315/2024 titled

as Ram Gopal Singh vs State of U.P., one of the co-accused

namely, Ram Gopal Singh (A-9) has been enlarged on regular

bail. Further, vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1825/2025 titled as Anoop

Singh vs State of U.P., another co-accused namely, Anoop

Singh (A-3) has been enlarged on regular bail therefore, the

petitioner needs to be enlarged on regular bail.

Hence, the present Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble

Court.
 E
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

25.06.2015 As per the version of prosecution, an FIR

bearing No. 211/2015 dated 25.06.2015 u/s

147, 148,149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and

Sec. 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act

bearing Case Crime No. 0211 was lodged at

22:30 pm on 25.06.2015 at P.S Maholi,

District Sitapur, U.P. to the effect that the

informant’s nephew Satyam had gone to fair

price shop (Kota) to collect oil where Satendra

Singh s/o Anil Singh belonging to Pradhan’s

family hurled abuses at Satyam and

assaulted him on his resistance. Thereafter,

the informant and his brother Jitendra along

with other family members went to Police out-

post Badagaon to report to police, the

aforesaid incident at around 04:00pm. There

came (i) Village Pradhan Harivansh Singh, (ii)

Ram Avtar Singh both s/o Babu Singh, (iii)

Anoop Singh, (iv) Surjeet Singh both s/o

Harivansh Singh, (v) Munna Singh s/o

 F
Harinath Singh, (vi) Dharmendra Singh s/o

Sanjay Singh, (vii) Satish Singh s/o Bhagwan

Baksh Singh, (viii) Pradeep Singh s/o

Virendra Singh, (ix) Ramgopal Singh s/o

Randhir Singh armed with illegal firearms and

(x) Rajendra Singh s/o Arjun Singh, (xi)

Mukesh Singh alias Vidur Singh s/o

Vishvanath Singh alias chhotkanne Singh

armed with Kanta (xii) Satendra Singh s/o

Anil Singh and (xiii) Ram Kumar Singh s/o

Ganesh Singh armed with sticks and spears

and surrounded the informant’s family.

Harivansh Singh stated that they want to

contest the Panchayat Election, and exhorted

that no one should escape alive, and then

shot at Jitendra and his other accomplices

started indiscriminate firing and beating with

Lathi, Kanta and Bhala. Informant’s father

Ram Lotan along with other injured persons

Ramanuj, Sachin, Sanoj, Rishabh, Jitendra

Kumar Mishra, Sunderlal and Lalji were

 G
taken to District hospital for treatment where

Jitendra, Sunderlal and Lalji were declared

dead by the doctors. The aforesaid accused

persons left the place waving their firearms

and threatened that if any one dares to fight

election of panchayat, he won’t be spared

alive. The people and shopkeepers ran away

as the horror engulfed the market.

The true translated copy of FIR No. 211/2015

dated 25.06.2015 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P/1. Pages No. 19 – 30.

02.07.2015 The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2015.

Dated nil The prosecution filed chargesheet under the

sections mentioned in the FIR against all the

thirteen accused persons and filed a list of 40

witnesses and several documents in support

of its case. The true translated copy of

relevant portion list of witnesses annexed

with chargesheet is annexed herewith as

Annexure P/2 Pages No. 31 – 36.

 H
Dated Nil The Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to reject

the bail application filed by the petitioner

herein.

2016 The Charges were framed by Ld. Trial Court

and the trial commenced.

Dated Nil Satyendra Singh (A-12) approached the

Hon’ble High Court seeking his enlargement

on regular bail.

14.06.2016 Vide order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Bail No. 4818 of 2016

bearing Neutral Citation No. 2016:AHC-

LKO:8603, Satyendra Singh (A-12) has been

enlarged on regular bail. The true copy of the

order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court in Bail No. 4818 of 2016 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P/3 Pages

No. 37 – 38.

Dated Nil Mukesh Singh (A-11) approached the Hon’ble

High Court seeking his enlargement on

regular bail.
 I
08.07.2016 Vide order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Bail No. of 1054 of

2016 bearing Neutral Citation No. 2016:AHC-

LKO:9271, Mukesh Singh (A-11) has been

enlarged on regular bail. The true copy of the

order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court in Bail No. 1054 of 2016 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P/4 Pages

No. 39 – 40.

Dated Nil Rajendra Singh (A-10) approached the

Hon’ble High Court seeking his enlargement

on regular bail.

14.07.2016 Vide order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Bail No. of 5926 of

2016 bearing Neutral Citation No. 2016:AHC-

LKO:9395, Rajendra Singh (A-10) has been

enlarged on regular bail. The true copy of the

order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court in Bail No. 5926 of 2016 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P/5 Pages

No. 41 – 42.
 J
Dated Nil Ram Kumar Singh (A-13) approached the

Hon’ble High Court seeking his enlargement

on regular bail.

21.07.2016 Vide order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Bail No. of 6313 of

2016 bearing Neutral Citation No. 2016:AHC-

LKO:9728, Ram Kumar Singh (A-13) has been

enlarged on regular bail. The true copy of the

order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court in Bail No. 6313 of 2016 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P/6 Pages

No. 43 –44.

Dated Nil Ram Gopal Singh (A-9) approached this

Hon’ble Court seeking his enlargement on

regular bail.

06.08.2024 Vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5315/2024

titled as Ram Gopal Singh vs State of U.P.,

one of the co-accused namely, Ram Gopal

Singh (A-9) has been enlarged on bail. The

true copy of the order dated 06.08.2024

 K
passed by this Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No.

5315/2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure

P/7 Pages No. 45 –47.

Dated Nil Anoop Singh (A-3) approached this Hon’ble

Court seeking his enlargement on regular

bail.

24.02.2025 Vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1825/2025

titled as Anoop Singh vs State of U.P., another

co-accused namely, Anoop Singh (A-3) has

been enlarged on regular bail. The true copy

of order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1825/2025 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P/8 Pages

No. 48 – 50.

Dated Nil Dharmendra Singh (A-6) approached the

Hon’ble High Court seeking his enlargement

on regular bail.

17.03.2025 Vide order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 10705 of 2024 bearing

 L
Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:15687,
Dharmendra Singh (A-6) has been enlarged
on regular bail. The true copy of the order
dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
10705 of 2024 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P/9 Pages No. 51 - 54.

Dated Nil Satish Singh (A-7) approached the Hon’ble

High Court seeking his enlargement on
regular bail.

17.03.2025 Vide order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 12563 of 2024 bearing
Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:15687,
Satish Singh (A-7) has been enlarged on
regular bail. The true copy of the order dated
17.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court
in Bail No. 12563 of 2024 is annexed herewith
as Annexure P/10 Pages No. 55 –59.

17.03.2025 Vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025

passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.
 M
5344 of 2025 bearing neutral Citation no.

2025:AHC-LKO:15687, the Hon’ble High

Court has been pleased to dismiss the bail

application filed by the petitioner on the basis

of gravity of the offence and the post mortem

report of three persons who have died in a

daylight murder which took place inside the

police out post, no one from the accused side

has received any injury which falsifies their

case of cross-firing and the manner in which

it has been executed, the role assigned to the

petitioner.

In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that

the dismissal of the bail application of the

petitioner was not warranted especially when

the trial has continued for a very long time

and the petitioner has suffered a prolonged

incarceration of more than nine and half

years as an under-trial prisoner.

In this regard, it is further respectfully

submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has

 N
seriously erred in not appreciating the fact

that the petitioner, as on the date of

impugned order, has spent more than nine

and half years in incarceration as an

undertrial prisoner.

The period of incarceration of the petitioner at

present, is more than nine and half years. The

trial is still in progress and the statements of

defence witnesses are being examined. Since

there are 13 accused persons, there may be a

large number of defence witnesses to be

examined which may take a considerable

amount of time.

It is also submitted that the petitioner has

been in incarceration for more than nine

years due to which he has lost his social

connections with the people who could be

presented before the Ld. Trial Court as

defence witnesses in his favour. Therefore, the

petitioner needs to be enlarged on bail to

enable him to effectively exercise his right of

 O
defence which is an essential ingredient of

right to fair trial.

It is respectfully submitted that A-9 Ram

Gopal Singh, A-6 Dharmendra Singh, A-7

Satish Singh, A-3 Anoop Singh who are

alleged to have been armed with illegal

firearms, A-13 Ramkumar Singh, A-12

Satendra Singh who are alleged to have been

armed with sticks and spears, A-11 Mukesh

Singh, A-10 Rajendra Singh who are alleged

to have been armed with kanta, have been

enlarged on bail.

The wife of the petitioner is severely ill and

there is nobody to take care of her therefore,

the petitioner needs to be enlarged on bail to

take care of his family.

It is respectfully submitted that the present is

a case of over implication wherein the entire

family of the petitioner including his brother

and sons, has deliberately been framed.

08.04.2025 Hence, the present Special Leave Petition

before this Hon’ble Court.
1
2
3
4
 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(S.C.R, ORDER XXII RULE 2(1))
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: - POSITION OF PARTIES

Sl. BEFORE IN THIS
HIGH COURT
COURT

01 HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE Petitioner Petitioner

S/o Babu Singh
R/o Village Badagaon P.S. Maholi
District- Sitapur.

VERSUS
01 STATE OF U.P. Respondent Respondent
Through its Principal Secretary
(Home) U.P. Government,
Lucknow- 226001

To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

The Special Leave petition of the

Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The present Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been

preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by the

Impugned Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

 6

Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No. 5344 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble High Court

has been pleased to dismiss the bail application filed

by the petitioner on the basis of gravity of the offence

and the post-mortem report of three persons who

have died in a daylight murder which took place

inside the police out post, no one from the accused

side has received any injury which falsifies their case

of cross-firing and the manner in which it has been

executed, the role assigned to the petitioner.

In this regard, it is further respectfully submitted

that the Hon’ble High Court has seriously erred in

not appreciating the fact that the petitioner having

been arrested on 02.07.2015, has spent almost nine

and half years as an undertrial prisoner. The trial is

still not concluded and the statements of defence

witnesses being recorded and examined and all PWs

have already been examined. Since there are 13

accused persons, there may be a large number of

 7

defence witnesses to be examined which may take a

considerable amount of time. It is also submitted

that the petitioner has been in incarceration for

more than nine and half years due to which he has

lost his social connections with the people who could

be presented before the Ld. Trial Court as defence

witnesses in his favour therefore, the petitioner

needs to be enlarged on bail to enable him to

effectively exercise his right of defence which is an

essential ingredient of right to fair trial. Further,

Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the

prolonged incarceration of the petitioner as an

undertrial prisoner has become punitive in nature

before being declared guilty.

It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves to

be released in view of the observations of this

Hon’ble Court in several matters where it has been

held that a prolonged pre-trial detention should not

result in incarceration becoming punishment

 8

without trial and such detention violates

fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of

the Constitution. This Hon’ble Court in the matter of

Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025

SCC OnLine SC 322 has observed as under “If an

accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner,

then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have

a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has

been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused

persons - who remain innocent until proven guilty -

can also be significant.”

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

In the above backdrop, the following substantial

Questions of law do arise for kind consideration of this
Hon’ble Court:
i. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was right in

dismissing the bail Application of the petitioner

on the ground of gravity of the offence despite the

fact that prima facie, the trial has continued for

a very long time and the petitioner has suffered

 9

a prolonged incarceration of more than nine and

half years as under-trial prisoner?

ii. Whether Hon’ble High Court has failed to

appreciate that the prolonged incarceration of

the petitioner as an undertrial prisoner has

become punitive in nature before being

declared guilty?

iii. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was right in

dismissing the bail Application of the petitioner

in view of the fact that Hon’ble High Court has

failed to appreciate the fact that since there are

13 accused persons, there may be large

number of defence witnesses to be examined

which would take a substantial time, even if the

trial is going on day-to-day basis?

iv. Whether the petitioner deserves to be enlarged

on bail to effectively exercise his right of

defence which is an essential ingredient of

right to fair trial in view of the fact that the

petitioner has been in incarceration for more

 10

than nine years due to which he has lost his

social connections with the people who could

be presented before the Ld. Trial Court as

defence witnesses in his favour?

v. Whether the petitioner deserves to be enlarged

on bail in view of the fact that all the eye

witnesses have testified before the Ld. Trial

Court therefore, there is no possibility to

influence the material witnesses?

vi. Whether the Petitioner deserves to be enlarged

on bail in view of the fact that his prolonged

incarceration as under-trial prisoner has

violated his fundamental right under Article 21

of the Constitution of India?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2):

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking

leave to appeal has been filed by him against the
Impugned Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad Judicature at
Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5344
of 2024.
 11

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The Annexures P- 1 to P-10 produced along with the

SLP are true copies of the documents which formed
part of the records of the case in the court against
whose order the leave to Writ petition is sought for in
this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

A. Because there is no possibility of influencing the

material witnesses at the hands of the petitioner

since all the prosecution witnesses have been

examined.

B. Because the Hon’ble High Court was not right in

dismissing the bail Application of the petitioner on

the ground of gravity of the offence despite the fact

that prima facie, the trial has continued for a very

long time and the petitioner has suffered a

prolonged incarceration of more than nine and half

years as an under-trial prisoner.

C. Because this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Tapas

Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 322 has observed as under “If an accused is

 12

to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven

years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it

could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under

Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The

stress of long trials on accused persons - who remain

innocent until proven guilty - can also be significant.”

D. Because the Hon’ble High Court was not right in

dismissing the bail Application of the petitioner in

view of the fact that Hon’ble High Court has failed

to appreciate the fact that since there are 13

accused persons, there may be large number of

defence witnesses to be examined which would

take a substantial time, even if the trial is going on

day-to-day basis.

E. Because various co-accused persons, who are

alleged to be armed with illegal firearms, kanta and

lathi, have been granted bail either by this Hon’ble

Court or by the Hon’ble High Court.

F. Because the petitioner herein is always ready to

produce himself as and when required and is also

ready to furnish surety bond and any other

 13

condition, which may be set out by this Hon’ble

Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

G. Because the wife of the petitioner is severely ill

therefore, the petitioner needs to be enlarged on

bail to take care of his wife.

H. Because the petitioner has deep social roots.

I. Because the petitioner herein most humbly

submits that he undertakes to comply and obey any

terms and conditions to be imposed by this Hon’ble

Court for granting him bail in this case.

J. Because the petitioner herein have prima facie case

and he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if

bail is not granted to him to the satisfaction of the

Ld. Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Case Crime No.

211/2015. The balance of convenience is in favour

of the petitioner and it is prima facie case for grant

of bail to him.

K. Because the petitioner herein most humbly and

respectfully submits that if the bail is not granted

to him by this Hon’ble Court as prayed by him, he

 14

and his family members will be put into irreparable

losses, injuries, hardships, mental agony and

sufferings and great injustice will be caused to him

and the interest of justice would be best served if

the petitioner herein is enlarged on bail.

L. Because, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents

and has been an elected representative as Pradhan.

Here it is important to bring on record that the

prosecution subsequently has slapped two more

cases (i) 2/3 under U.P. Gangsters Act vide Case

Crime no. 11/2017 and Sec. 3/25 of Arms Act Vide

Case Crime no 375/2015 in P.S. Kotwali Sitapur.

Since they arise out of same occurrence therefore

they can not be treated as separate criminal

antecedents.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

NIL
7. MAIN PRAYER
In the circumstances, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:
 15

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the

order/judgement dated 17.03.2025 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 5344 of 2024; and/or

b) Pass such other order/orders as Your Lordships

may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

NIL

Filed on 01.04.2025 Filed by

ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

Advocate for the Petitioner
 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:-
HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE …PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. …RESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to
the pleadings before the Hon’ble Court whose order is
challenged and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave
Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the
annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are
necessary to answer the question of law raised in the
Petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave
Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This
certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by
the Petitioner/person authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.

Filed on 01.04.2025 Filed by

ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

Advocate for the Petitioner
17
18
 19

ANNEXURE P/1

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

Under Section 154 CR.P.C.

1. District: Sitapur P.S. Maholi, Year:2015

F.I.R No.0211 Date and time : 25.06.2015

2. S. no. Acts Sections

01. IPC 1860 147

02. IPC 1860 148

03. IPC 1860 149

04. IPC 1860 323

05. IPC 1860 504

06. IPC 1860 307

07. IPC 1860 302

08. ACT 7 CLA ACT

3. Occurrence of offence:

(a) Day Date From Date to

Thursday 25.06.2015 25.06.2015

Time Period: 6 Time From: 16:00 Time 16:00

(b) Information received at police station: dated:

25.06.2015 Time:22.30

(c) General Diary Reference: Entry no. 046, dated:

 20

4. Typed of Information: Written

5. Place of Occurrence:

1. (a) Direction and Distance from police station: 15 KM,

Beat No.

(b) Address : Bahat Village Badagaon, Choki Ke Samne.

(c) In case, out of the limit of the police station: District

Sitapur

6. Complainant / Informant :

(a) Name : Rajjan Lal Mishra

(b) Father’s Name: Ram Lotan Mishra

(c) Date/ Years of Birth: 22:30

(d) Nationality: India

(e) UID no.

(f) Passport no.

Date of Issue : Place of Issue:

(g) ID details (Ration Card, Voter Card,

Passport, UID No.

Driving, License, Pan):

S. No. ID Type: ID Number :

(h) Occupation:

(i) Address:
 21

S No. Address Type Address

01. Present Add. Badagaon Maholi, Sitapur,

, Uttar Pradesh, India.

02. Present Add. Badagaon Maholi, Sitapur,

, Uttar Pradesh, India.

(j) Phone Number: Mobile: +91-9009044417

7. Details of Know/ suspected / unknown accused with

full Particulars. Accused more Than.

Sl. Name Alias Relative’s Present Add

Father

01. Harivansh Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

02 Ram Avatar Badagaon

Maholi,

Sitapur,
 22

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

03. Anup Singh Badagaon

Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

04. Surjeet Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

05. Munna Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,
 23

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

06. Dharmendra Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

07. Satish Singh Badagaon

Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

8. Pradeep Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,
 24

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

9. Ram Gopal Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

10. Rajendra Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

11. Mukesh Badagaon

Singh @ Maholi,

Vidur Singh Sitapur,

 25

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

12. Satendra Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

13. Ram Kumar Badagaon

Singh Maholi,

Sitapur,

,Uttar

Pradesh,

India

08. Reasons of delay in reporting by the complaint/

Informant:

09. Particular of the properties of interest:

 26

Sl. No. Property Category Property type

descriptions

10. Total Value of property .

11. Inquest report U.D. case No. if any.

Sl. No. UID Number

12. First information contents:

Copy of complaint of the complainant- To, the

Police Station In-charge Maholi District Sitapur,

Applicant Rajjan Mishra S/o Ramlotan Mishra is a

resident of Village Badagaoa Police Station Maholi

District Sitapur. The applicant’s brother wanted to

contest for the post of Pradhan in the upcoming

Panchayat elections due to which the present

Pradhan Harivansh Singh used to have grudge.

Today on 25.06.2015, the applicant’s nephew

Satyam had gone to take get oil in quota and there

in the market, Pradhan’s family persons named

Satendra Singh S/o Anil Singh, abused Satyam and

on forbid, he was beaten with kicks and fists blows.

When the applicant and applicant's brother Jitendra

 27

and other members of the family had gone to give the

information about the above incident at Badagaon

Post at around four o'clock in the afternoon at the

same time Village Pradhan Harivansh Singh S/o

Babu Singh, Ram Autar S/o Babu Singh, Anup

Singh S/o Harivansh Singh, Surjit Singh S/o

Harivansh Singh, Munna Singh S/o Harinath Singh,

Dhamendra Singh S/o Sanjay Singh, Satish Singh

S/o Bhagwan Baksh Singh, Pradeep Singh S/o

Virendra Singh, Ram Gopal Singh S/o Randhir

Singh with illegal weapons in their hands and

Rajendra Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Mukesh Singh

alias Vidur Singh S/o Vishwanath Singh alias

Chhotkanne Singh came with Kantha in their hands

and Santendra Singh S/o Anil Singh and Ram

Kumar Singh S/o Ganesh Singh came with lathi and

spears in their hands and surrounded us and

Harivansh Singh said that ‘so you want to contest

the Pradhani election, look no one should survive

today and while saying this, Harivansh Singh shot

 28

Jitendra and his other associates started rapid firing

and started beating with sticks and spears.

Applicant’s father Ramlotan and others took all the

injured Ram Anuj, Sachin, Sanoj, Rishabh, Jitendra

Kumar Mishra and Sunderlal and Lalji to District

Hospital where the doctors declared Jitendra,

Sundar Lal and Lalji dead. These people went away

waving weapons and saying that if anyone contests

the Pradhan election, he will not survive. This

incident spread panic in the market and all the

shopkeepers left and ran away. And there was a

stampede among the public, people left their shoes

and slippers and ran away to save their lives. The

applicant is very scared and the lives of other

members of his family are in danger. Therefore, I

request your goodself to kindly take appropriate

action by writing a report. The applicant got the

injured admitted in Trauma Centre, Lucknow due to

which due to busyness he could not write the report

immedaitely. Signature Rajjan Lal Mishra Applicant

 29

Rajjan Lal Mishra S/o Ram Lotan Mishra Village &

P.O. Badagaon Police Station Maholi, District

Sitapur Mob. No.9889944417, Complaint Writer-

Munna Lal Mishra S/o Shri Salikram Mishra Village

& P.O. Badagaon District Sitapur Police Station

Maholi Mob. No.9670708777.

Note: It is certified that the above was registered at

the present police station in the daily dairy by

Shivakant Pandey and it has been typed by me the

computer operator (Rajeev Pandey) in verbatim on

the computer.

13. Action taken: since the above information reveals

commission of the offence under section as

mentioned at item No. 2

(1) Registration the case and talk of the investigation

(2) Direction (Name of I.O.) Rank: Inspector to take up

the investigation.

(3) Refused investigation due to

(4) Transfer to police station district

 30

on point of jurisdiction

F.I.R. read over to the complainant information admitted

to be correctly recorded and a copy give the complainant

informant free of cost.

Signature of officer and in charge,

police station

Name: Vinay Gautam

Rank: Inspector

//True Translation Copy//

 31

ANNEXURE P/2

TRANSLATED COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION

13. Particulars of Witnesses to be Examined.

Sl. Name Fa Date Occu Address Type of

th /yea patio Evidenc
er’ r of n e to be
s Bert tendere
/ h d
H
us
ba
nd
1 Shri Present FIR
Rajjan Address: Witness
Lal Badagaon
Mishra Maholi,
S/o Sri Sitapur, Uttar
Ram Pradesh, India.
Lotan
Mishra
2 Sujit Present FIR
Kumar Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Ram Maholi,
Prasad Sitapur, Uttar
Mishra Pradesh, India
3 Sanoj Present FIR
Kumar Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Ram Maholi,
Lotan Sitapur, Uttar
Mishra Pradesh, India
4 Om Present FIR
Prakash Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Maholi,
Munna
 32

Lal Sitapur, Uttar

Mishra Pradesh, India
5 Pradeep Present FIR
Singh Address: Witness
S/o Badagaon
Manohar Maholi,
Singh Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
6 Manoj Present FIR
Kumar Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Ram Maholi,
Lotan Sitapur, Uttar
Mishra Pradesh, India
7 Umakant Present FIR
Mishra Address: Witness
S/o Badagaon
Pyare Lal Maholi,
Mishra Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
8 Rinku Present FIR
S/o Address: Witness
Munna Badagaon
Lal Maholi,
Mishra Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
9 Ashutos R/o Baddipur FIR
h Pandey Maholi Sitapur Witness
S/o Shiv Uttar Pradesh.
Valak
Pandey
10 Anil Present FIR
Kumar Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Maholi,
Meku Lal Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
11 Aashish Present FIR
Mishra Address: Witness
S/o Badagaon
 33

Ramaka Maholi,
nt Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
12 Ram Present Eye
Lotan Address: Witness
Mishra Badagaon
S/o Maholi,
Shaligra Sitapur, Uttar
m Pradesh, India
13 Ram Present Eye
Anuj S/o Address: Witness
Ram Badagaon
Bharose Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
14 Sachin Present Eye
S/o Address: Witness
Ramanuj Badagaon
Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
15 Sanoj Present Eye
S/o Ram Address: Witness
Bharose Badagaon
Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
16 Rishabh Present Eye
S/o Anil Address: Witness
Kumar Badagaon
Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
17 Uttam Present Eye
Kumar Address: Witness
S/o Ram Badagaon
Bharose Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
 34

18 Munna Present Not

Lal S/o Address: Availabl
Saligram Badagaon e
Maholi,
Sitapur, Uttar
Pradesh, India
19 SI Sri Present Add: Recover
Balveer SSI PS Talgaon y
Singh Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India.
20 SI Present Add: Recover
Kamales PS Maholi y
hwar Sitapur, Uttar Evidenc
Prasad Pradesh India e
Yadav
21 SI Sri Present Add: Recover
Vinod PS Maholi y
Kumar Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Chaursiy Pradesh India
a
22 Const. Present Add: Recover
Ajay PS Maholi y
Kumar Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Singh Pradesh India
23 Const. Present Add: Recover
Ajit PS Maholi y
Kumar Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India
24 Const. Present Add: Recover
Uday PS Maholi y
Pratap Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Singh Pradesh India
25 Const. Present Add: Recover
. Dharmen PS Maholi y
dra Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Kumar Pradesh India
26 Const. Present Add: Recover
Shiyanar PS Maholi y
ayan Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India.
 35

27 Const. Present Add: Recover

Ranveer PS Maholi y
Singh Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Bhadoriy Pradesh India
a
28 SSI Present Add: Recover
Rajendra PS Kotwali y
Sharma Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India
29 SI Ajit Present Add: Recover
Singh PS Kotwali y
Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India
30 Const. Present Add: Recover
Rahul PS Kotwali y
Kumar Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India
31 Const. Present Add: Recover
Mayank PS Maholi y
Gangwar Sitapur, Uttar Witness
Pradesh India
32 In Not
Illegible Availabl
e
33 SI Sadip Present Add: Not
Kumar Police Station Availabl
Singh In-Charge, e
Sadan Sitapur,
Uttar Pradesh
India
34 In Not
Illegible Availabl
e
35 CC Present Add: Not
Sivakant PS Maholi Availabl
Pandey Sitapur, Uttar e
Pradesh India
36 Rajeev Present Add: Not
Pandey PS Maholi Availabl
(Comput e
 36

er Sitapur, Uttar
Operator Pradesh India
)
37 Dr. RK Expert
Garg Evidenc
MOIC e
38 In Not
Illegible Availabl
e
39 In Not
Illegible Availabl
e
40 In Not
Illegible Availabl
e

//TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//

 Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC-LKO:8603

Court No. - 4 37
Case :- BAIL No. - 4818 of 2016 ANNEXURE P/3
Applicant :- Satyendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of Up
Counsel for Applicant :- Jayant Singh Tomar,Jitendra Bahadur
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
G.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Diwakar
Singh,learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there
are 13 persons named in the FIR who are said to have armed with lathi,
danda, sharp edged weapons and firearm weapons.He further submits that
so far the applicant is concerned, he is said to have armed with lathi and
three persons have died on account of firearm injury. He next argued that
in the incident three persons sustained injuries of blunt object but it
appears that no X-ray was performed and no internal or external damage
was caused to them. He argued that the entire family members of the
applicants are in jail. The applicant is in jail since 27.6.2015.

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA vehemently

opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the in the present case
three persons have lost their lives and five persons received injuries but
they could not dispute the fact that the appellant was armed with lathi and
deceased did not receive any injury of lathi and though the injured
received injury of hard and blunt object but no internal or external injury
was caused to them.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension
of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this
case.

Let the applicant-Satyendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No.211 of

2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and 7
C.L.A., Police Station-Maholi, District Sitapur be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac with two sureties (one should of 38
his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for
the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed
in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against
him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the
trial court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from
the case of other co-accused persons who were armed with firearm
weapons and sharp edged weapons.

Order Date :- 14.6.2016

NS
 Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC-LKO:9271

Court No. - 22 39
ANNEXURE P/4
Case :- BAIL No. - 1054 of 2016

Applicant :- Mukesh Singh @ Vidur Singh

Opposite Party :- The State Of Up
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sri Niwas
Bajpai

Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

The applicant Mukesh Singh alias Vidur Singh has sought bail
in Crime No.211/2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307,
302, 504 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act,
relating to police station Maholi, District Sitapur.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that although in

this case three persons have lost their lives and five persons are
injured but thirteen persons are name in the FIR and all of them
have been assigned the role of assaulting the deceased and the
injured persons. It has further been submitted that during the
course of investigation specific role was assigned to each one of
the accused persons and the applicant was assigned the role of
assaulting with "Kanta". It has further been submitted that three
deceased persons have died on account of firearm injuries while
out of five injured persons, four injured persons have received
lacerated wounds, which was probably caused by "Lathi", or
any other hard blunt object. The co-accused Satyendra Singh,
who was armed with "lathi", has been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.06.2016. It has further
been submitted by the learned counsel that only one injured has
received incised wound, which was probably caused by the
applicant, but the nature of injury is not serious.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant

have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been
submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place during the
election of Gram Pradhan and the applicant along with other co-
accused persons have killed three persons and have injured five
persons, so their common object of killing them is established.
Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that it
is specifically mentioned in the bail order of the co-accused that
the case of the co-accused Satyendra Singh was distinguishable
from those co-accused, who were armed with the firearm
weapon and sharp edged weapon. The applicant has, therefore, 40
no parity with the co-accused, who has been granted bail.
However, it is not denied that out of three deceased and five
injured only one injured person has received incised wound and
the nature of injury is not disclosed in the postmortem report.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in

view the aforesaid facts, but without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, let the applicant Mukesh Singh alias
Vidur Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with
law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

However, it is directed that the trial court shall make every

endeavour to dispose of the session trial, relating to this bail
application, as expeditiously as possible.

Order Date :- 8.7.2016

Rakesh/-
 Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC-LKO:9395

Court No. - 22 41
ANNEXURE P/5
Case :- BAIL No. - 5926 of 2016

Applicant :- Rajendra Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of Up
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

The applicant Rajendra Singh has sought bail in Crime

No.211/2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504
IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to
police station Maholi, District Sitapur.

The applicant claims parity with the co-accused Mukesh Singh

alias Vidur Singh, who has been granted bail on 08.07.2016 on
the ground that the co-accused Mukesh Singh alias Vidur Singh
was having "Kanta" and the present applicant was also having
"Kanta". The deceased had admittedly died as a result of ante-
mortem firearm injury, which was caused by the co-accused
Hariwansh Singh. The co-accused, who were assigned the role
of assaulting the deceased and injured person with "Lathi", have
also been granted bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, it is

not disputed that the case of the applicant is identical to the co-
accused Mukesh Singh alias Vidur Singh, who has been granted
bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in

view the aforesaid facts, but without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, let the applicant Rajendra Singh
involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
 42
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with
law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 14.7.2016

Rakesh/-
 Neutral Citation No. - 2016:AHC-LKO:9728

Court No. - 22
ANNEXURE P/6
43
Case :- BAIL No. - 6313 of 2016

Applicant :- Ram Kumar Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiu Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The applicant Ram Kumar Singh has sought bail in Case Crime
No. 211 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307,
302 IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police
Station Maholi, District Sitapur.
The applicant has claimed parity with co-accused Satyendra
Singh who has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 14.6.2016. The submission of the learned counsel for
the applicant is that co-accused Satyendra Singh and the present
applicant Ram Kumar both have been assigned Lathi and Bhala
as weapon but the post mortem report of the deceased persons
reveals that the cause of death is fire arm injury. The injuries in
the nature of contusion and lacerated wounds are not serious
and also are not on vital part of the body.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but it has not
been disputed that the case of the applicant is similar to that of
co-accused Satyendra Singh who has already been granted bail
by this Court.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts but without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of
accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension
of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the
Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant named above involved in the above noted case
crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he
shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
 44
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with
law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the
trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 21.7.2016

Muk
 45
ANNEXURE P/7

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.5 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5315/2024

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 16-01-2024 in

CRMBA No. 14878/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

RAM GOPAL SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 90941/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT
IA No. 90940/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 06-08-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv.
Mr. Atam Katiyar, Adv.
Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv.
Mr. Vinit Pathak Adv.
Mr. Devesh Kumar Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Mani Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR

Mr. Aditiya Kumar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented by Mr.
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2024.08.06

Shaurya Sahay, learned counsel.

15:10:46 IST
Reason:

2. The petitioner was arrested on 06.07.2015 and by now, he is

1
kept in custody for around 9 years as an under-trial prisoner.
46
The

learned counsel for the State Mr. Sahay would refer to the counter

affidavit to say that this was a very serious incident of three

persons getting killed and the petitioner should not be considered

for bail notwithstanding the long custody duration as he is a

habitual offender with criminal antecedent.

3. Addressing the above contention, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel

would submit that the petitioner is neither a named accused nor a

chargesheeted accused in the FIR No. 375 of 2015 mentioned in the

State’s counter affidavit. The circumstances leading to the

incident are then highlighted by the petitioner’s counsel by

reading the FIR to say that no fire arm is attributed to the

petitioner and no weapon attributed to the petitioner, has been

recovered.

4. As can be seen, till date, only 14 prosecution witnesses have

testified and 26 more witnesses are yet to record their evidence.

This would suggest that the trial is unlikely to conclude in near

future.

5. In matters of bail, the Court has to be conscious that the

process itself cannot be the punishment for an offence.

Theoretically, the trial court may not find any material to convict

the petitioner. Yet by now, the petitioner has been in custody for

around 9 years.

6. While considering bail for the petitioner, it must be borne in

mind the fact that his role may not be the same as that of the

2
other accused in the case who have actually fired the fire arms
47
leading to the casualties of the other side.

7. Considering the circumstances here, we deem it appropriate to

grant bail to the petitioner – Ram Gopal Singh, in connection with

the case arising out of the FIR No. 211 of 2015. It is ordered

accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned

trial court.

8. With the above, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

3
 1 ANNEXURE P/8 48
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.17 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1825/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-01-2024

in CRMBA No. 6455/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]

ANOOP SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)

IA No. 18775/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 24-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv.
Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Devesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akash Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR

Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge

the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of

Signature Not Verified

VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.02.24
16:56:44 IST
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc.
Digitally signed by

Reason:

Bail Application No. 6455/2021, dismissing the second

application for bail filed by the petitioner, in

 2
49
connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated

25.06.2015, registered at Police Station Maholi,

District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences

punishable under Sections 147,148,149,323,504,307,302

of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law(Amendment) Act,

1932.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

exactly similarly situated co-accused namely, Ram

Gopal Singh, against whom there is identical

allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in

SLP(Crl.)No.5315/2024.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is

a case of triple murder.

4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the

trial has not concluded, if the prosecution was so

serious, there is no satisfactory answer.

5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the

petitioner has been in custody for more than nine and

a half years and similarly situated co-accused having

been granted bail, we are of the considered view that

the petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail,

subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by

the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

 3
50
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANJALI PANWAR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15687 51
Court No. - 18 ANNEXURE P/9

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10705

of 2024

Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P.
Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Wasim Ahmad on behalf of

complainant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
This is the fourth bail application. The first bail application of
the applicant bearing Bail No.2697 of 2016 was dismissed by
Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.05.2016.

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant

seeking bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2015, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 7 of CLA Act,
P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur.

It is alleged that according to prosecution case, the brother of

the applicant wanted to contest the forthcoming election of
Village Pradhan and due to that current Pradhan Harbansh
Singh was inimical to the informant and his brother. On
25.6.2015, the nephew of the informant went to fair price shop
then Satyendra Singh one of the family members of village
Pradhan had abused Satyam and some scuffle took place and
when information about the incident was given to Police
outpost Bada Gaon, the informant along with brother Jitendra
and other family members went to police out post at about 4
p.m. Then the village Pradhan Harbansh Singh along with 12 52
other named accused persons out of which nine were having
fire arms and four were having lathi, bhala (sharp cutting
weapon) surrounded the informant and his family members and
Harbansh Sinhh exhorted and said that no one should remain
alive and by saying this Harbansh Singh shot Jitendra and in
this scuffle informant's father Ram Lotan, and five others were
injured as a result of firing Jitendra, Sunder Lal and Lal ji died.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused

Anoop Singh who was granted bail by the Supreme Court vide
order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.1825/2025 a weapon was recovered from him
whereas there is no recovery of weapon from the present
applicant and thus, it is submitted that case of present applicant
is on better footing than that of co-accused Anoop Singh. While
granting bail to the co-accused Anoop Singh, the Supreme
Court has referred to the bail granted by it to another co-
accused Ram Gopal Singh, having identical allegation. The
order dated 24.2.2015 (supra) of Supreme Court is extracted
hereunder :

"The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge the order dated

16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6455/2021,
dismissing the second application for bail filed by the petitioner, in
connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated 25.06.2015, registered at
Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and
Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exactly similarly
situated co-accused namely, Ram Gopal Singh, against whom there is
identical allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in SLP(Crl.)
No.5315/2024.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of triple murder.
4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the trial has not 53
concluded, if the prosecution was so serious, there is no satisfactory
answer.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in
custody for more than nine and a half years and similarly situated co-
accused having been granted bail, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail, subject to the terms and
conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

He submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.07.2015.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail prayer.

Perused the record.

On due consideration to the period of custody gone into by the

applicant and the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since
10.07.2015 and the judgment of supreme Court in the case
of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and
another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 so also the bail
order of Anoop Singh (supra), without expressing any opinion
on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the
applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Dharmendra Singh be released on bail in

aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following
conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the
 trial. 54
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

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 to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with
law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Order Date :- 17.3.2025

Saurabh Yadav/-

Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15687 55
Court No. - 18
ANNEXURE P/10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12563
of 2024

Applicant :- Satish Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home
Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Shukla,Lalit Kishore
Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Wasim Ahmad on behalf of
complainant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of
the applicant bearing Bail No.3322 of 2023 was dismissed by
this court vide order dated 21.02.2024.

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant

seeking bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2015, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 7 of CLA Act, P.S.
Maholi, District Sitapur.

It is alleged that according to prosecution case, the brother of

the applicant wanted to contest the forthcoming election of
Village Pradhan and due to that current Pradhan Harbansh
Singh was inimical to the informant and his brother. On
25.6.2015, the nephew of the informant went to fair price shop
then Satyendra Singh one of the family members of village
Pradhan had abused Satyam and some scuffle took place and
when information about the incident was given to Police
outpost Bada Gaon, the informant along with brother Jitendra
and other family members went to police out post at about 4 56
p.m. Then the village Pradhan Harbansh Singh along with 12
other named accused persons out of which nine were having
fire arms and four were having lathi, bhala (sharp cutting
weapon) surrounded the informant and his family members and
Harbansh Sinhh exhorted and said that no one should remain
alive and by saying this Harbansh Singh shot Jitendra and in
this scuffle informant's father Ram Lotan, and five others were
injured as a result of firing Jitendra, Sunder Lal and Lal ji died.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that role of firing to

the deceased Jitendra has been assigned to co-accused Harbansh
Singh. Applicant has been assigned general role along with
other eight assailants who are alleged to be armed with
firearms. It is submitted that four persons who were assigned to
have sharp edged weapon have been enlarged on bail.

It is further contended that co-accused Anoop Singh who was

also assigned general role like the present applicant has been
granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2025
passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.1825/2025 while referring grant of bail to another co-
accused Ram Gopal Singh against whom identical allegation
was made.

It is submitted that false recovery of 12 bore country made

pistol is shown to have been recovered from the applicant and
from Anoop Singh also there was a recovery of firearm. It is
also submitted that role assigned to the present applicant is
similar to that of co-accused Anoop Singh. The order dated
24.2.2025 (supra) of the Supreme Court is extracted below :

"The petition is filed seeking leave to challenge the order dated

16.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6455/2021,
dismissing the second application for bail filed by the petitioner, in
connection with F.I.R. No. 211 of 2015, dated 25.06.2015, registered at57
Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307, 302 of IPC and
Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exactly similarly
situated co-accused namely, Ram Gopal Singh, against whom there is
identical allegation, has been granted bail by this Court in SLP(Crl.)
No.5315/2024.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of triple murder.
4. However, on the query of the Court as to why the trial has not
concluded, if the prosecution was so serious, there is no satisfactory
answer.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in
custody for more than nine and a half years and similarly situated co-
accused having been granted bail, we are of the considered view that the
petitioner, Anoop Singh, be released on bail, subject to the terms and
conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

Upon a specific query being made by this Court as to why trial

has not been concluded yet and why out of five injured, three
injured persons have not been examined, no satisfactory reply
could be given although the accused has incarcerated for about
9 years and 7 months.

The supreme Court while considering the custody period of co-

accused Anoop Singh and also the fact that another co-accused
Ram Gopal Singh who was similarly situate, has already been
granted bail, has granted bail to the co-accused Anoop Singh. It
is prayed on behalf of the applicant that since the role of the
applicant and the co-accused Anoop Singh is similar therefore,
applicant may be also be enlarged on bail. He submits that the
applicant is in jail since 26.06.2015 however, has no criminal
history.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail prayer. 58
Perused the record.

On due consideration to the period of custody gone into by the

applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history
however, he is languishing in jail since 26.06.2015, judgment of
supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs.
State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787
of 2024 so also the bail order of Anoop Singh (supra), without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit
case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Satish Singh be released on bail in aforesaid

case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

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 to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
 59
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with
law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Order Date :- 17.3.2025

Saurabh Yadav/-

Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
 60

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. M.P. No. of 2025
In
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:-

HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. …RESPONDENT

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O/T

ANNEXURE P-1 AND P-2
TO,
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER
ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The present Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been

preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by the

Impugned Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad Judicature at

Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.

5344 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has

been pleased to dismiss the second bail application

filed by the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the

 61

offence and the fact that the trial is going on day-to-

day basis.

2. That the Annexures P- 1 and P - 2 marked in the

petition for Special Leave to Appeal were originally in

Hindi and the Petitioner have gotten the same

translated into English from a local advocate who is

well versed with both, Hindi and English.

3. That it is therefore not only fit and proper but also in

the interest of justice that the English translation

gotten down by the Petitioner be taken on record and

the Petitioners be exempt from filing official translation

of the same.

4. That the Application is being filed in bonafide and in

the interest of justice.

PRAYER

That in view of the above, the Petitioner most humbly

prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :-

a. Exempt the Petitioner from filing Official

Translation of the Annexure P-1 and P-2; and/or

 62

b. Pass such other and further orders as may be

deemed fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

Filed on. 08.04.2025 Filed By

PRABODH KUMAR
Advocate for the Petitioner
 63

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:-

HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE …PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. …RESPONDENT

FILING MEMO/INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS COPIES COURT-FEE

01. SLP 1+3

02. I.A. FOR OT 1+3

TOTAL Nil /-

Filed on 08.04.2025 Filed by

ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

Advocate for the Petitioner
 64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2025

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF: -

01 HARIBANSH SINGH @ BHOORE Petitioner

S/o Babu Singh
R/o Village Badagaon P.S. Maholi
District- Sitapur.

VERSUS
01 STATE OF U.P.
Through its Principal Secretary
(Home) U.P. Government,
Lucknow.

Filed on 08.04.2025 Filed by

ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

Advocate for the Petitioner
 65

b @ Bhoore

Adarsh Kumar Tiwari

Adarsh Kumar Tiwari

ADARSH KUMAR TIWARI

CODE 4195
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER
66
 67

Superintendent Mob-9454418246
Jailor Mobile-9454418247

E. [email protected]

OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL SITAPUR

DETENTION CERTIFICATE

Letter no. /U.T./2025 :-Dated .03.2025

It is certified that the undertrial prisoner Haribansh Singh @ Bhoore

Singh son of Babu Singh resident of village Badagaon, police station
Maholi, District Sitapur whose details are as follows.

SL. Name of Details of cases Period of detention

prisoner/father'
s
name/address
01. HARIBANSH 1-S.T. No. 118/2016 The undertrial
SINGH @ Crime No. 211/2015, prisoner was
BHOORE sections- 147,148, detained in the this
SINGH S/o 323, 504, 307, 302 Jail on 02.07.2015.
BABU SINGH I.P.C and 7 C.L.A. During the custody,
R/o Village Act, P.S- Maholi, on 01.03.2017,
Badagaon P.S. District- Sitapur. custody warrant of
Maholi District- crime no. 93/2017 u/s
Sitapur. 2 - ST No. - 119 / 2/3 UP.G Act was
2016 received in this jail.
Crime No. - 375 / On 27.01.2020,
2015, Section - 25(1- released from this jail
B) Arms Act, Police on short term bail in
Station - Kotwali three cases.
Nagar, District -
Sitapur.

3 - Crime No. - 93 /
2017,
Section - 2 / 3, UP
Gangsters Act,
Police Station -
Maholi, District -
Sitapur.
1 - Crime No. - 211 / Again: 1 - Crime No.
2015, - 211 / 2015, Section
 68

Sections - 147, 148, - 147, 148, 149, 323,

149, 323, 504, 307, 504, 307, 302, IPC,
302, IPC, and 7 CLA Act
7 Criminal Law 2 - Crime No. - 375 /
Amendment Act, 2016, Section - 25(1-
Police Station - B), Arms Act
Maholi, District - 3 - Crime No. - 93 /
Sitapur. 2017, Section - 2 / 3,
UP Gangsters Act
2 - Crime No. - 375 / After returning from
2015, the short term bail in
Section - 25(1-B), these three matters,
Arms Act, undertrial prisoner
Police Station - was detained in this
Kotwali Nagar, jail again on
District – Sitapur. 06.02.2020. During
3 - Crime No. - 93 / the detention, on
2017, 21.11.2024, custody
Section - 2 / 3, UP warrant in crime no.
Gangsters Act, 408 / 89,
Police Station - Sections - 352, 504,
Maholi, District - 506, IPC,
Sitapur. Police Station -
4 - Crime No. - 408 / Maholi, District –
89, Sitapur was received
Sections - 352, 504, in this jail. Above
506, IPC, mentioned prisoner
Police Station - is lodged in this jail
Maholi, District - at present.
Sitapur.

The said prisoner is currently detained in this jail.

Yours sincerely
District Jail Sitapur

//TRUE TRANSLATED COPY//