Allahabad High Court
Sunil vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159351
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24968 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant as the first application for bail has been rejected vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38877 of 2022.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.226 of 2022, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Majhola, District - Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, during the course of trial, the statement of P.W.-1, Sonu Chauhan - informant, was recorded. On perusal of entire statement, it transpires that informant, P.W.-1 is not the eye witnesses of the incident and in his statement, he has assigned the motive to applicant that his mother used to call the applicant as "Sharabi", so the applicant committed the incident. While no such motive has been assigned in the Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by this witness. The injured witness, Vineet Chauhan who is allegedly sustained injury on his wrist, who has not corroborated the prosecution version and has categorically stated that he had not seen the person who fired and also stated that the applicant did not make fire in the incident. It is also submitted that the witnesses of fact has been recorded and there is no chance that applicant may temper the witnesses. It is also argued that there is no purpose to keep the applicant inside the jail. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 02.04.2022 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but 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."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant, Sunil, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local and heavy sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
Atul
