Allahabad High Court
Pawan @ Suraj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36384 of 2021
Applicant :- Pawan @ Suraj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pawan @ Suraj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 62 of 2017, under Sections 363, 372, 373, 376, 120-B I.P.C., 3/4, 5/6, 5/9 Immoral Traffi Prevention Act & 12 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the applicant is named in the first information report which was lodged on 19.01.2017 along with co-accused Arvind who is his behnoi and the applicant has been arrested on 01.07.2021 and as such there has been an abscondence of about 04 years and 06 months. It is argued that as such release of the applicant will definitely have chance of his further absconding in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued in rebuttal that the applicant is aged about 70 years. Paragraph 14 has been placed. It is argued that co-accused Manoj @ Sanoj; Ganesh @ Rajesh @ Kalu; Arvind @ Sahji @ Babli; Yogesh; Kamlesh @ Kallo have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 01.05.2017, 22.05.2017, 05.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and 16.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15167 of 2017, 18604 of 2017, 23097 of 2017, 18457 of 2017 and 18761 of 2017, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Geeta @ Aarti has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34533 of 2021, the copy of the said order has been produced which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant had no information about the case being lodged against him and as such he did not surrender or explored legal remedies available.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant has absconded for about 04 years and 06 months. There is no explanation given whatsoever regarding his abscondence for such a long time. Co-accused Arvind is his relative being his brother-in-law / sadhu. It cannot be said that the applicant had no information about his implication in the present matter. It further transpires that trial in the present matter has started which is referred to in the order rejecting bail of the applicant by the trial court.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specifically the abscondence of the applicant for a long time and since trial has started in which the evidence of witnesses is going on, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant, hence, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
