Allahabad High Court
Dipty Singh vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2016
Bench: Vikram Nath, Sheo Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3095 of 2009
Appellant :- Dipty Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Sinha,Dharmendra Singhal,Ghan Shyam Das,Ghanshyam Dubey,K.Ajit,Rajeev Chaddha,Suman Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Ajay Vikram Yadav,Kamlesh Singh
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.
Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 392147 of 2009.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the complainant and perused the material placed before us on the question of consideration of 03rd Bail Application.
The prayer for the first bail was refused by order dated 29.04.2011. The 02nd Bail Application was rejected by order dated 17.12.2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant has already suffered incarceration of more than eight years and four months. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the 03rd Bail Application, it is stated that applicant was in jail for eight months during the trial before being released on bail and further since the date of judgement, he has spent 7 years and six months in jail. It was next submitted that as per the first information report single injury was said to have been caused by the appellant. After the postmortem was conducted, during the trial, the prosecution witness of fact stated that another injury was caused by co-accused ? Ram Bharose. It was thus submitted that in fact no one had seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that the appellant has suffered 8 ½ years of incarceration and there being little hope of the appeal being heard in near future, therefore, the accused-appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Reliance has been placed upon the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court :
i. Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. [2001(2) JIC 163 (SC)]
ii. Takht Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2001 (1)) SCC 463
iii. Kamal vs. State of Haryana [ 2004 (13) SCC 526]
iv. Order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2356 of 2010 (Kushal Singh vs. State of U.P.)
v. Order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.1502 of 2006 (Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P.)
vi. Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.8242 of 2007 (Dharmendra Singh vs. State of U.P.)
vii. Order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr. P.C. No.451 of 2006 (Jannat Ali & others vs. State of U.P.)
viii. Sunil Kumar Vs. Vipin Kumar and others reported in 2014(87) ACC 277.
ix. Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2005(53) ACC 465.
From a perusal of the aforementioned judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Division Benches of this Court, it is apparent that the consistent view is that where the accused has spent substantial period of sentence in jail and there is little likelihood of the appeal being heard or the trial being concluded, as the case may be, the accused may be enlarged on bail. In all the above cases different periods have been held to be substantial period ranging from three years and three months to eight years.
In the present case the appellants ? Dipty Singh has already spent eight & half years incarceration and we have been informed that there is little hope of the present appeal being heard at an early date or in near future.
Accordingly following the consistent view of the Apex Court and this Court the accused appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the accused- appellant ? Dipty Singh convicted and sentenced vide judgement and order dated 15th May, 2009, passed by the Additional Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, District ? Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1998 - (State Vs. Dipty Singh), under Section 302 I.P.C, Police Station - Elau, District - Mainpuri, be admitted on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.
Order Date :- 18.11.2016
Vinod.
