Allahabad High Court
Bunty vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159196
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8724 of 2023
Applicant :- Bunty
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today in Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail No. 53385 of 2019 was dismissed due to non-prosecution by me and second being Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 47799 of 2021, was rejected by me on merits vide orders dated 15.12.2020 and 25.03.2022 respectively.
4. This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2019 (S.T. No. 5 of 2020), under Sections 304 IPC, Police Station Mudha Pandey, District Moradabad, during pendency of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, there are as many as 14 prosecution witnesses and out of the said witnesses, only seven prosecution witnesses has been examined and the remaining seven witnesses are yet to be examined.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.05.2019 and has already undergone more than four years of incarceration in jail, however till date, trial has not yet been concluded.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is incarcerated in jail since 01.05.2019 and there are very bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to very heavy dockets.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment, which is as under:-
"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 Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that under trials 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."
9. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that looking to the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, prima facie a case for bail is made out. He has further submitted that criminal history of the applicant of a single case has been explained in para no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit, which is of trivial nature and the trial of the said case is still in progress even after lapse of six years.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in the backdrop of the said circumstances, if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail.
11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 01.05.2019.
12. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that during the course of trial, 14 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, however till date, the statement of only seven prosecution witnesses has been recorded, thus, seven more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
13. In view of the above, chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets and the applicant cannot be incarcerated in jail for indefinite period due to delay in conclusion of trial. It is further germane to point out here that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit, which case is also of a trivial nature, thus, in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
14. Let the applicant Bunty be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the 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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of the 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.
15. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
16. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
18. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
19. Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e-mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023
Vibha
