O R D E R

1) Leave granted.

2) The complainant has approached this Court impugning order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the High Court whereby while allowing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34215 of 2025 filed by respondent No.2 (Zunaid), the High Court released him on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 0215 of 2024 under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.

3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties DND1R S 2 i iIae g gD:ta5 n ietH s8 a a :o I: l t 2 l 5 u n Ay02 r : H e s 2 I i 6 US g N . nJT0 o Ae3 t d. V 1 b e 4y rifia o edt f l a e n n g o t r h g , a n w i e z e f d i n g d a n t g h at l l r e e g s e p d o l n y d e n l t e d N o b . y 2 K i a s l e a e m m , e mb w e h r o was hired by the principal conspirator Saurabh Singh.

4) There are 12 antecedents against respondent No.2 who is already in custody under U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, therefore, the order of his release was stayed vide order dated 09.12.2025.

5) In such a heinous case, grant of bail merely on account of delay in identification is completely unjustified. On the date on which respondent No.2 was granted bail, he had undergone only eight months of custody.

6) Considering all these aspects, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of grant of bail.

7) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 at this stage places reliance on the judgment of Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2026) (2026 INSC 157); however, the principle enunciated in that case is not applicable in the facts of the present case because in this case, the order of grant of regular bail is under challenge on merits and not because of post bail conduct as has been canvassed by the counsel for the respondent no. 2. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot derive the benefit of the said judgment.

8) Accordingly, looking to the facts of the case, in our view, grant of bail by High Court is not justified. The present appeal filed by the complainant stands allowed and impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the High Court directing to release the respondent No.2 on bail, stands set aside.

9) We make it clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for setting aside of the order granting bail and have nothing to do with the merits which shall remain uninfluenced during trial.

ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.3 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. 21304/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-09-2025 in CRMBA No. 26640/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]

INDRA BAHADUR SINGH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(Crl) No. 20079/2025 (II)

(IA No. 315507/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(Crl) No. 21305/2025 (II)

Date : 10-03-2026 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR

Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv.

Ms. Madhulika, Adv.

Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv.

Mr. Radeesh Kumar Mt, Adv.

Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Mrs. Rachna Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR

Mr. Rajesh Maurya, Adv.

Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Rai, Adv.

Ms. Mahek Srivastav, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

SLP(Crl) No. 20079/2025

1) Leave granted.

2) The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

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

SLP (Crl.) No. 21304/2025

SLP(Crl) No. 21305/2025

1) Even after service of notice, no one is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 in both the aforementioned special leave petitions. Issue bailable warrants against the respondents in the sum of ₹10,000/-