Pankaj Second Bail vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 14542 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7986 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Pankaj Second Bail
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Ali Jibran,Ankit Kumar Trivedi,Anuj Dayal,Praveen Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

This is the second bail application. The first bail application moved on behalf of applicant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rang Nath Pandey in Bail No. 5907 of 2017.

Pleadings are complete and have already been exchanged between the parties. The case is ripe up for hearing.

Heard Shri Anuj Dayal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Hari Om Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Pankaj, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Misrikh, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant is in jail since 25.03.2016 and is having no criminal antecedent, which fact has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that two co-accused, Smt. Kanti and Jugraj have already been granted bail by two different coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 25.05.2022 and 15.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9853 of 2021 and 611 of 2022.

Apart from above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant also submits that applicant is in jail since 25.03.2016 and has already undergone a substantial period of more than six years in jail, till date trial has not yet been concluded and out of 19 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, which fact has been stated in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.09.2022 and in support of his argument learned counsel for the applicant has also filed statements of these two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1-Manoj Kumar and P.W.2-Asha Devi as Annexure-S.A.-1 and S.A.-2 of the said affidavit. thus, it has been argued that 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 Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463 and submits that ratio of law applicable in those cases is also applicable in the case of the applicant, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

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. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is in jail since 25.03.2016 and has already undergone a substantial period of detention, 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. opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that applicant is involved in heinous crime.

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 25.03.2016 and the trial has not yet been concluded and out of 19 witnesses only two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1-Manoj Kumar and P.W.2-Asha Devi have been examined, 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 Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, 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), Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, 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, Pankaj, involved in Case Crime No. 73 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Misrikh, District Sitapur, 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 :- 20.10.2022

Mustaqeem