Allahabad High Court
Bhonu @ Manoj vs State Of U.P. on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40664 of 2022
Applicant :- Bhonu @ Manoj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021. The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the first bail application this Court had directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months but the same is pending yet. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of trial to be concluded in near future. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that general role has been assigned to all the accused person including the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 01.05.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submission drawn the attention of this Court towards 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."
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."
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.
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 has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant Bhonu @ Manoj involved in Case Crime No. 0190 of 2021, under Sections 323, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
Bhanu
