Allahabad High Court
Jay Kant Bajpai vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 38
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42543 of 2022
Applicant :- Jay Kant Bajpai
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A as well as Sri Abhishek Srivastava, brief holder for the State.
This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-383 of 2020, under Sections 181, 193, 196, 199, 200, 420 IPC, registered in Police Station Bajaria, District Kanpur Nagar.
First bail application had been rejected by this Court on 6.9.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20622 of 2021 with direction to conclude the trial preferably within a period of eight months strictly in compliance of Section 309 Cr.P.C. from the date of production of a certified/computerized copy of the order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he filed certified copy of the order of the trial court immediately but the trial has not been concluded within the period as prescribed in the bail rejection order.
Counsel for the applicant also filed a copy of the order sheet along with an affidavit filed in support of the second bail application. The said certified copy also filed by learned AGA along with counter affidavit, which indicates that till date only statement of PW-1 has been recorded and his cross-examination is going on. The last order passed on 2.11.2022 by the trial court is quoted as under:
02/11/22
16/11/22
जयकान्त (7)
आज पत्रावली पेश हुयी। अभियुक्त जिला कारागार से तलब होकर पेश किया गया। वयान P.W-1 का लिखा गया। शेष साक्षी तलब हो। साक्ष्य हेतु दि० 16.11.22 को पेश हो।
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Criminal Appeal No. 5191/2021 (Satendra Kumar Antile Vs. CBI and another) has held that "it expects the Courts to comply with Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., which, though contemplates proceedings to be held on a day-to-day basis, curves out exceptions and grants power to Courts to postpone or adjourn proceedings. However, the Bench was of the view, that in case of any unreasonable delay, the accused ought to get the benefit of the same, notwithstanding the benefit that might ensure to the accused under Section 436A of the Code.
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Jay Kant Bajpai, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Noman
