Allahabad High Court
Rajan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 2012
Bench: Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14 AFR
Case :- BAIL No. - 5832 of 2012
Petitioner :- Rajan Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjay Dwivedi,Rakesh Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is the second bail application, first of which was rejected vide order dated 28.05.2012 on the ground that the injured suffered three wounds on the vital part of the body.
The accused-applicant is in jail since 21.11.2011 i.e. for about one year and the trial has not yet began. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that one year has elapsed and nothing concrete has taken place in the case. Reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
" In Bihar Fodder Scam [Laloo Prasad case, (2002) 9 SCC 372] this court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose."
While deciding that case, Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon the law laid down by it in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1950 SC 27 and has held that as under:-
"The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt."
This Court is fully conscious that the personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
The accused applicant is a salesman in medical company and, as such, there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant relates to ensure the fair trial of the case.
In State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spend in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spend 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above is a corner stone relating to fundamental right of liberty vis-a-vis prevention of crime.
Considering the facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, let the accused-applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No.240 of /2010, Under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V pf SC/ST Act, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 6.11.2012.
Rks.
