Allahabad High Court
Kanhaiya Lal (Second Bail) vs State Of U.P. on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 9258 of 2020
Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Shukla
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 second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 14.11.2013; charges were framed on 12.02.2014 and since then not a single prosecution witness has been produced.
It is next submitted that general role has been assigned to all three accused persons, later on weapon kanta is shown in the hand of the applicant and lathi is shown in the hands of the co-accused persons. The applicant has been assigned the role of causing injury to the deceased by sharp edged weapon 'kanta'.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of the eye witness namely Badke general role has been assigned to all the co-accused persons while the eye witness has been assigned the role of causing assault by kanta to the deceased and the others have been assigned the role of assault by lathi. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that considering the period of incarceration the applicant is straightway entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support his arguments, he has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court of India passed in Criminal Appeal No. 98/2021, on 01.02.2021 "Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb", Criminal Appeal No. 2178/2011, on 23.11.2011 "Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I.", Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2011, on 03.01.2011 "State of Kerala Vs. Raneef" and the judgment of this Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench passed in Bail No. 1636/2019, on 18.01.2021 "Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of U.P".
It is further submitted that considering the period of incarceration, the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no previous criminal history.
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 arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record so also the report of the learned trial court according to which non-bailable warrant was issued on 16.12.2015 against the co-accused Pramod, however, till date he has not appeared before the trial court and therefore, the trial is held up and the judgments of Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that it will take sufficient time to conclude the trial and so 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, Kanhaiya Lal, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R No. 221/2013, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station - Pisawan, District - Sitapur, 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 :- 12.3.2021
R.C.
