The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a case involving serious allegations of indiscriminate firing, after noting that all fact witnesses had been examined and the accused posed no threat to the judicial process. The decision underscores the evolving standards of bail jurisprudence in India, particularly in cases involving political rivalry and cross-allegations.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Markendey Rai @ Markendey, was implicated in Case Crime No. 492 of 2024 registered at Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR was lodged on 26.10.2024 alleging that the accused, along with eight others, fired indiscriminately using a licensed revolver, resulting in injuries to two persons. One of the injured suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and another to the neck. The accused was described as having absconded and surrendered on 30.10.2024.
Key Facts
- The FIR named nine accused persons, eight of whom were later enlarged on bail.
- The accused was specifically alleged to have opened fire using his licensed revolver.
- The motive attributed was the prevention of construction of the accused’s house.
- The accused contended that the FIR was falsely lodged due to political rivalry.
- A cross-case was filed by the accused under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), naming 17 persons and alleging injuries to the accused’s side.
- The incident occurred on 26.10.2024, with the same date and time reflected in both FIRs.
Procedural History
- 26.10.2024: FIR lodged at Police Station Ghosi, District Mau.
- 30.10.2024: Accused surrendered and was remanded to judicial custody.
- 15.07.2025: First bail application filed and rejected by the High Court.
- 06.07.2026: Trial court submitted a report to the High Court confirming that all fact witnesses had been examined.
- 21.07.2026: Present second bail application filed and allowed by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The accused’s counsel argued that the accused was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and that the role attributed to him was exaggerated. It was further submitted that all fact witnesses had been examined and only formal witnesses remained, that the accused had been in custody since 30.10.2024, and that other co-accused had already been released on bail. The accused sought bail to enable him to proceed with the trial and produce defence evidence.
The State, through the learned A.G.A., opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual position regarding the examination of witnesses or the absence of threat posed by the accused.
Relief Sought
The accused sought enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial, furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, and cooperation in the judicial process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the accused was entitled to bail during the pendency of trial, given that all fact witnesses had been examined and the accused posed no threat to the witnesses or the judicial process.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was incorrectly framed due to political rivalry. It was argued that the accused’s role was limited to opening fire in self-defence, as the injured persons had come to stop the accused from raising construction of his house. It was further contended that all fact witnesses had been examined, only formal witnesses remained, and the accused had been in custody since 30.10.2024. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgments in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re to support the plea for bail.
For the Respondent
Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual position regarding the examination of witnesses or the absence of threat posed by the accused. The State’s opposition was therefore procedural rather than substantive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the rival submissions and perused the record. It noted that all fact witnesses had been examined and only formal witnesses remained to be examined. The Court observed that the accused had been in custody since 30.10.2024 and that the trial was at an advanced stage.
The Court considered the Supreme Court’s recent judgments in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re, which emphasize the need for a balanced approach to bail, especially in cases where the trial is nearing completion and the accused does not pose a threat to the witnesses or the judicial process.
The Court held that the accused’s continued detention was not necessary, given the advanced stage of the trial and the absence of any threat posed by the accused. The Court further noted that the co-accused had already been released on bail, which supported the grant of bail to the accused.
"Considered that all the witnesses of facts have been examined and now, the applicant will not be a threat to win over the witnesses."
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The accused, Markendey Rai @ Markendey, was directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 492 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The accused was directed to cooperate in the judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail After Witness Examination Is Now the Norm
Practitioners should note that courts are increasingly inclined to grant bail once all fact witnesses have been examined, especially where the accused does not pose a threat to witnesses or the judicial process. This trend is supported by recent Supreme Court precedents.
- Courts will assess the stage of trial and the role of the accused in the offence.
- The absence of threat to witnesses is a critical factor in bail decisions.
Political Rivalry and Cross-Allegations Require Careful Scrutiny
- Courts are vigilant about false implications arising from political rivalry or personal disputes.
- The presence of cross-cases and reciprocal allegations must be carefully evaluated to determine the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.
Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines Is Non-Negotiable
- The Court explicitly relied on Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re to justify the grant of bail.
- Practitioners must ensure that bail applications are framed in compliance with these guidelines to enhance the chances of success.
