Rakesh Kashyap vs State Of U.P.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6497 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									Court No. 46
 

 
	Criminal Misc. Vth Bail Application No. 226195 of  2010
 
						IN
 
			Criminal Appeal No. 2754 of 2005
 

 
Ravindra Kumar alias  Babbu and others.        ............ Applicants .
 
				       Versus
 
State of U.P.                                                       ............Opposite Party
 
					****** 
 
Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

This is Vth Bail Application moved on behalf of the applicants-appellants- Ravindra Kumar alias Babbu, Munna, Vinod alias Munni and Bachcha in S.T. No.37 of 1995, under Sections 147 and 302/149 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 09/95, police station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal.

The First Bail Application on behalf of seven appellant-accused persons including the present appellant were rejected by a Division Bench of this Court on 07-12-2005 on merits. Thereafter, Second Bail Application was moved on behalf of all appellants, out of which accused Shiv Baran and Ram Kripal, who were assigned role of exhortation and further considering their old age, this Court on 10-05-2007 allowed the Bail Application of two appellants, namely, Shiv Baran and Ram Kripal and rejected the bail of five appellants including the present appellant again on merits.

The IIIrd Bail Application was moved on behalf of the appellant- Vinod alias Munni and the present appellant -Vinay in which this Court on 24.08.2009 allowed bail to the appellant- Vinay and rejected the bail application of the appellant- Vinod alias Munni on the ground that he was juvenile at the time of alleged incident.

Lastly, a IVth Bail Application was moved on behalf of the present four appellants in the aforesaid appeal which was rejected by this Court on 12-03-2010 on merits. Now, the Vth Bail Application has been moved on the present applicants-appellants in the aforesaid Appeal which has been nominated by Hon'ble The Chief Justice to a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) hence, it is before us.

Shri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Saurabh Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants stated that he does not want to press the present bail application on merits. The sole grounds which the learned counsel for the appellants have argued praying for bail for the appellants is that he had relied on Supplementary Affidavit filed in the Vth Bail Application in the aforesaid Appeal, which was sworn on 16th November, 2010. The averments made in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit are quoted here below :

2- That in the present case applicants have been convicted under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C. and are in jail since last more than five years.

"3- That this Criminal Appeal was filed in the year 2005 and at present the criminal appeals of the year 1983 are being listed before Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. The criminal appeals filed in the year 2005 are likely to be listed after about 20 to 25 years.

4- That more than 5000 criminal appeals, in which bail has been rejected, have been expedited by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

5- That these expedited criminal appeals have been expedited in the year 2010 and even then about 1000 expedited criminal appeals which were filed in the year 2000, have not been disposed off.

6- That under the facts and circumstances given above it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the appellants on bail in S.T. No. 37 of 1995 under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C. arising out of the Case Crime No. 9 of 1995 at police station Rajapur, District Chitrakoot during pendency of the present appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, otherwise the appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

From the perusal of the averments made in the Supplementary Affidavit which has been quoted above, it is argued that the appellants, who have been in jail for more than 5 years, cannot be confined in jail for an unlimited period as the hearing of the Criminal Appeal pending before this Court is not likely to be held in future for about 20-25 years as at present, the Criminal Appeals of the year 1983 are being listed before Division Benches of this Court. He has also drawn attention of this Court that more than 5000 Criminal Appeals in which bail has been rejected and expedited by various Division Benches of this Court. Even the expedited Criminal Appeals are not being heard by this Court due to pressure of work and shortage of Judges in the Court.

From the perusal of the Supplementary Affidavit it is evident that the averments made in the Supplementary Affidavit in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are based on personal knowledge of the deponent-Santosh Kumar Pandey who has sworn the said supplementary affidavit in the bail application.

We do not want to comment on the information which the deponent has received regarding the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit.

It is true that there are a large number of Criminal Appeals which are pending before this Court as well as there are several expedited Criminal Appeals which are pending and the final hearing before the Court is a little difficult due to unavoidable circumstances. But it is note worthy to mention here that there are Division Benches before which regular Criminal Appeals as well as expedited Criminal Appeals are being listed at regular intervals before the Court. Very often the Court's realizes that the lawyers do not appear before the Court to argue the Criminal Appeals finally for on one account or an other, there are illness slips and unnecessary adjournments are sought by the counsel. In such a situation, the hearing of the Criminal Appeals are not possible as the Court also feels handicapped in the absence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to argue the said Criminal Appeals. The Courts or the system alone cannot be put at fault for non-disposal of the Criminal Appeals as the Bench and Bar are the two wheels of the same chariot and both have to go together for getting early disposal of the Criminal Appeals so that the accused-persons should not wait for a long time to seek justice from the Court of law. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4502 of 1982, Indian Society of Lawyers Vs. President of India & others, decided on 21-07-2011, has directed all the Constitutional Authorities to fill up the vacancies of the Judges and has requested them to do the needful in the matter.

The learned counsel for the applicant-appellants has placed reliance a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Akhtari Bi Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 Vol. 42 ACC 857 (Supreme Court) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has released the appellant who was a lady had to look-after a male child who under compulsion was also confined in jail since his birth and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there is no law by which such a child can also be directed to be kept with the appellant in jail. Depriving the appellant from looking after the child would not only be against the interests of the child but against the interests of society as well.

The case of Smt. Akhtari Bi (supra) is distinguishable from the present case. In the instant case, two persons have lost their life and one person has received injury. This Court has already taken a sympathetic view against the appellants- Shiv Baran and Ram Kripal who were only assigned the role of exhortation and the appellant- Vinay, who was juvenile, have already been released on bail by other Division Benches by this Court vide orders dated 10-05-2007 and 24-08-2009, respectively. The present appellants are the main accused and they have been assigned specific roles of causing injuries to two deceased persons and the bail applications have already been rejected by this Court on merits earlier on two occasions. Now, simply because the appeal of the appellants cannot be heard by this Court, as argued by the counsel for the appellants and they have been in jail for more than 5 years hence they be granted bail does not find force in our view. Hence, we are not inclined to release the appellants on bail and the bail application is hereby rejected.

The hearing of the appeal is expedited and the office is also directed to prepare the paper-book within three months from today and list the case immediately for final hearing before the appropriate Bench.

However, we hope and trust that when the appeal is expedited for final hearing the learned counsel for the appellants would make sincere efforts to argue the aforesaid appeal before the appropriate Bench and in case the appeal is not heard by the Court then the appellants may again move bail applications if so advised.

Dt. 15-12-2011

AK