Allahabad High Court
Brijesh vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 29 of 2018
Appellant :- Brijesh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nishit Upreti,Manoj Kumar Misra,Mukesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Order on IInd Bail Application No. 47734 of 2021
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of appellant/applicant in S.T. No.377 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2012, under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C., Police Station- Nigoha, District- Lucknow.
The first bail prayer of the appellant made in the appeal was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
The second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground of long incarceration that the appellant is in jail for a period of more than 4 years.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant appearing in the second bail application is that the applicant is in jail for more than 4 years with no previous criminal history. Further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the appeal is arguable, however, there is no likelihood that the appeal being heard in near future. Reliance has also been placed in a reasoned judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Madan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2018, arising out of Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 1319 of 2018.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that mere long incarceration in jail would not be a ground for bail.
The Court is of the view that mere long detention in jail does not entitle a convict on bail pending appeal. Reference be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav vs. CBI through its Director reported in 2007 (1) SCC 70 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"..........None of the decisions cited can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said there is any absolute rule that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a long period of incarceration by itself would entitle him to be enlarged on bail.
"..........While it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."
Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan reported in 2004(7) SCC 528.
It has been held to this effect in Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra and others, 2002 (9) SCC 364, Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) 1067 and Girand Singh vs. State of U.P., 2010 (69) ACC 39 and also by us in Criminal Appeal No. 4599 of 2014, Chandra Bhan Yadav @ Baba Yadav vs. State of U.P. (decided on 27.10.2017).
No fresh ground has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant for granting bail to the appellant/applicant. The application for bail is hereby rejected at this stage.
However, the hearing of this appeal is expedited.
Office is directed to immediately prepare paper book and provide a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the appellant on payment of usual charges and to learned AGA free of cost.
After preparation of paper book, list immediately before appropriate Court.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
SK/-
