Allahabad High Court
Satyajeet vs State Of U.P. on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162217
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33995 of 2023
Applicant :- Satyajeet
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sayed Sohail Asgar
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 record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 297 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26691 of 2021.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that all the fact witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and only formal witnesses remains to be examined. It is further submitted that statements of eye witnesses i.e. PW1 Dilip, PW2 Golu were recorded before the trial court, they have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. It is further submitted that from perusal of the statement of PW3/Informant Pushpa Devi, it transpires that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident. It is further submitted that PW4 Sonu who happens to be the brother of the deceased also not corroborated the prosecution version and turned hostile during his deposition before the trial court. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 04.08.2020 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the head of the deceased is assigned to the applicant.
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, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all the fact witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and none of them had supported the prosecution version 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 Satyajeet in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 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.
Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and all endeavours be made to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period three months after receipt of the certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the applicant.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023/AKT
