Allahabad High Court
Sukhdev @ Barkau vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163283
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16901 of 2023
Applicant :- Sukhdev @ Barkau
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14743 of 2021 has been rejected by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, vide order dated18.08.2021. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the trial of the aforesaid case commenced wherein, the statement of the informant, who alleges to be eye-witness was recorded as P.W.1 wherein he denies to be a eye witness of the alleged incident whereas in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the P.W.1 has claimed to be eye-witness. It is thus contended that there is a material contradiction in the statement of the P.W.1 recorded before the Court below as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than three years and that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2020 having no criminal history.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail, however could not dispute the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than three years.
4. 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, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
5. Let applicant Sukhdev @ Barkau involved in Case Crime No. 66 of 2020 under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each 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 and 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
IV. The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023
S.Ali
