Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. on 12 January, 2021
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43750 of 2019
Applicant :- Deepak
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Bholeshwar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This Court while rejecting the first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2142 of 2018 vide order dated 19.01.2018 had expedited trial in terms of the following orders:
"In case, the case has not yet been committed, the Magistrate concerned is directed to commit the case to the court of Sessions within 15 days next from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon committal of the case, the court of Sessions shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and conclude the same with a period of six months next from the date of committal in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the period indicated above, the applicant would be at liberty to renew his plea for bail through a fresh bail application made in accordance with law.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance."
Heard Mr. Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial has not been concluded till date, though much more than six months have expired since 19th January, 2018. He has taken this Court through the order sheet of the trial which shows that six witnesses had been examined until 19.08.2019. It shows that no other prosecution witnesses turned up on that day and bailable warrants were issued. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the fresh ground in support of the present bail application is that the applicant has done more than three and a half years in jail (being incarcerated since 04.06.2017 as an under trial) whereas the minimum sentence provided for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is 7 years. He submits that even if convicted, in the totality of circumstances, he could be awarded the minimum sentence. Also, if that be so, the applicant has done more than half of the term which he could possibly receive on conviction. It is also argued that delay in the trial is not on his part. The order sheet shows that the delay is on the prosecution's part and there is no end to the trial in sight. In the circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the applicant has done more than three and a half years in jail as an under trial where the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is seven years, the fact that the prosecution witnesses are not being produced despite the trial being expedited by this Court with no end to the trial in sight, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Deepak involved in Case Crime No. 24 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 304-B I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
BKM/-
