Allahabad High Court
Guddu @ Dinesh Kumar (Third Bail) vs State Of U.P. on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- BAIL No. - 1125 of 2021
Applicant :- Guddu @ Dinesh Kumar (Third Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhulika Yadav,Archana
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 13.06.2016 and the second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 01.05.2019. The bail rejection orders of the applicant are on record as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-accused is in jail since 22.02.2015 and the trial is held up due to covid-19. The status report submitted by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao is on record. As per the report, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been recorded and file is still in evidence. At present the Court of POCSO Act, Unnao is lying vacant.
Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgments of the Apex Court "Hussain and another Vs. Union of India with AASU Vs. The State of Rajasthan, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 702, Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R.S. Nayak and another" reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, "Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 502, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Rajan reported in (2015) 11 SCC 502" in which the law is settled that the speedy trial is the fundamental right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution and prolonged delay disposal of the trials for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail and also to be released on bail.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the fact that while rejecting the first bail application, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of order dated 13.06.2016, however, till date only the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have been recorded and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.05.2015, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Guddu @ Dinesh Kumar, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 115/2015, under Sections 376(2)(H) I.P.C. and Section 5(J)(1)/5K6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Barasagwar, District - Unnao, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.
Order Date :- 13.7.2021
R.C.
