Allahabad High Court
Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Third Bail ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its ... on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 8
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1451 of 2022
Applicant :- Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Third Bail Application)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant-Sarwan Kumar Gupta, who is involved in F.I.R./Case Crime No.382 of 2017, under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Bikapur, District-Faizabad. The first and second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.4.2019 and 04.08.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It is next argued that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history prior to lodging of the present case. The applicant is in jail since 01.09.2017. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the criminal case, only two prosecution witnesses have been produced as yet. There are total 22 witnesses to be produced by the prosecution. The same are yet to take long time.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: ''Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb' reported in [AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712.] Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-
"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
5. The Apex Court in the case of ''Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation' passed in ''Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020)' has observed as under :
"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
6. In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then a period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.
7. Learned counsel has submitted that since the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case and the present applicant is co-operating with the trial proceedings and if there is any lapse in not concluding the examination of prosecution witnesses, it is no fault on the part of the present applicant but on the part of the prosecution, therefore, he may be released on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the specific allegations has been levelled against the present applicant, therefore, his bail application may be rejected.
10. Therefore, in the given circumstances and considering the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the aforesaid grounds are considered as fresh to consider the third bail application, therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the instant third bail application of the present applicant is allowed.
11. Let applicant-Sarwan Kumar Gupta, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(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 fail 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 (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 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.
(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
12. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
