Allahabad High Court
Umesh Prajapati vs State Of U.P. on 7 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21810 of 2021
Applicant :- Umesh Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadeesh Narayan Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 206 of 2015 (S.T. No. 864 of 2016), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Saraimemrej, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order 12.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43121 of 2016.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The only new ground taken in the present second bail application is that there is no substantial progress in the trial and applicant is languishing in jail since 12.07.2016. Pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2022, learned trial court has submitted a compliance report as per which 37 prosecution witnesses are proposed to be examined and no witness has been examined as yet.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Umesh Prajapati involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant/s 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.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023
AKT
