Allahabad High Court
Habeeb vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239157
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47281 of 2023
Applicant :- Habeeb
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Session Trial No.29 of 2021 (State Vs. Habeeb and others) pending before the Additional District Judge/ F.T.C, Court No.1, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 302, and 34 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First Bail Application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7821 of 2023.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased Gulista. It is submitted that PW-2 Shri Liyakat Husain who happens to be uncle, PW-3 Smt. Raheesan who happens to be (mother) and PW-4 Shri Rahees Ahmad is also uncle of the deceased, have been examined but they have not corroborated the F.I.R version. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.10.2020. It is submitted that in case applicant released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 5.10.2020 and witnesses of fact have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. 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."
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Habeeb 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.
9. 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 :- 16.12.2023/SFH
