Ajay Pratap Singh Alias Dabloo ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8998 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5025 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Alias Dabloo Singh S/O Late Chandra Bhan Singh (Second Bail)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.03.2017 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pratyush Kumar (now retired) in Bail No. 1308 of 2017.

The applicant, Ajay Pratap Singh Alias Dabloo Singh, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raibareli.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has four cases in his criminal antecedents except the present case, which has been explained in para-27 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Out of four cases, in first case he has been convicted only under Section 323 I.P.C.; in second case he is on bail; and in remaining two cases he is not on bail. There is no any credible evidence against the applicant showing his involvement in the present case.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that bail application of co-accused Abhay Singh @ Ankit Singh was rejected by this Court on 23.09.2021, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8245 of 2021 and the same was allowed on the ground that he (co-accused) has already undergone for about 6 years in the custody and a direction was given by the High Court to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, but the trial was not concluded and only five prosecution witnesses were examined out of 16 prosecution witnesses.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that similarly circumstanced co-accused, Dhananjay Singh @ Dhunadi has already been granted bail on the ground of delay in trial by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1650 of 2022. It is thus argued that since similarly circumstanced co-accused, Abhay Singh @ Ankit Singh and Dhananjay Singh @ Dhunadi have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant may also be enlarged by this Court.

Apart from above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant also submits that applicant is in jail since 03.02.2016 and has already undergone a substantial period of more than six years in jail and till date trial has not yet been concluded and only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of sixteen, as is apparent from the order dated 04.03.2022 passed in the bail order of co-accused, Dhananjay Singh @Dhunadi (supra), hence, much time will take place in conclusion of trial. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein it has been held that if the accused person is in jail for substantially long period and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, the bail application may be considered. Besides, learned counsel for the applicant has referred the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgments in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that as there appears no chance of early conclusion of trial, the applicant may also be enlarged by this Court sympathetically on bail on the ground of delay in trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, Dhananjay Singh @ Dhunadi, who is the similarly circumstanced and identically placed, as the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1650 of 2022 and the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, who hase been granted bail, therefore, the applicant may also be enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of parity.

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. The applicant is in jail since 03.02.2016 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but he does not dispute this fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail and co-accused Abhay Singh @ Ankit Singh, having identical role, has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering that applicant is in jail since 03.02.2016 and the trial has not yet been concluded and only few witnesses have been examined and the similarly circumstances and identically placed other co-accused has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra), Kamal (supra), Takht Singh (supra), and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22,this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Ajay Pratap Singh Alias Dabloo Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 29 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raibareli, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 3.8.2022

Mustaqeem