Allahabad High Court
Mohd Sarif vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 December, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235581
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9493 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd Sarif
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamta Prasad,Chandan Yadav,Deepesh Kumar Ojha,Dipanshu Kushwaha,G.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant 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 and second being Criminal Misc. Bail Nos. 7828 of 2019 and 9725 of 2021 was dismissed by me vide orders dated 16.12.2020 and 2.3.2022 respectively.
4. This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 455 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Jhunsi, District- Allahabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, applicant is languishing in jail since 30.7.2018 and has almost undergone about five years and four months of incarceration in jail and there are as many as eight prosecution witnesses, however till date only P.W.-1 has been examined and trial is progressing at a snail pace and as such prospects of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets.
6. 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 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."
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is in jail since 30.7.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit and there is no chance of applicant fleeing from the judicial process or tampering the evidence and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means, as such, he be released on bail.
8. 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 30.7.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.
9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, who is under trial prisoner and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such circumstances for grant of bail, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
10. Let the applicant- Mohd. Sarif 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(A) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(B) 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.
(C) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(D) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(E) The applicant shall remain present in person before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
14. 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 :- 12.12.2023
KU
