Subhash vs State Of U.P. on 20 January, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Subhash vs State Of U.P. on 20 January, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8731
 

 
Reserved On:-16.01.2025
 
Delivered On:-20.01.2025
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53634 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Subhash
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Vipin Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bharat Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
 

1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan and Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Deepak Dubey and Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Subhash, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 247 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 34, 427 of IPC, Police Station- Islamnagar, District- Budaun, during pendency of trial.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 directing the trial court to conclude the trial against the applicant within period of one year.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before the trial court six prosecution witnesses have been examined. Examination-in-chief of P.W.-7, Inspector, took a long time and it has been recorded on 28.08.2024. P.W.-7, being police personnel was not available on every date and hence delay has taken place in his cross-examination. Out of three prosecution witnesses of facts two have not supported the prosecution case at all.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 502; Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. —/2024. and has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and have submitted that trial has been delayed because of the dilatory tactics adopted by counsel for the defence side by not promptly cross-examining the P.W.-7, when he had appeared before the trial court, he has further submitted that the applicant is the main accused and does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. They have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024 (6) SCC 758 and has submitted that that since the trial is on the verge of conclusion, bail should not be granted to the applicant.

7. After considering the rival submission, this Court finds that the co-accused have already been granted bail in this case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021. The delay in trial can be attributed to the accused who have already been enlarged on bail, but it cannot be said that the applicant, who is in jail, is delaying the proceedings of the trial.

8. This Court finds that the prosecution evidence appears to be at the verge of conclusion, but the statements of the accused under sections 313 Cr.P.C and defence evidence is yet to come. Hearing of this case may also take time. The applicant has criminal history of four cases explained in paragraph no.46 of the bail application. He has already been acquitted in all of the four cases.

9. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon’ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

“This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”

10. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. …/2024 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(v) 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.

11. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 20.1.2025

Abhishek