Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Singh @ Rajnish Singh vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil ... on 19 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:83786
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12536 of 2023
Applicant :- Pankaj Singh @ Rajnish Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. This is the second bail application.
2. The first bail bail application bearing Bail No. 7672 of 2013 was heard and rejected by Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J vide order dated 05.05.2014.
3. Heard ShriAnand Dubey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
4. This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Pankaj Singh @ Rajnish Singh on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 163 of 2010 under Sections 302 I.P.C, Police Station- Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 23.09.2021, the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, strictly adhering to the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C, but till date, trial has not been concluded. He further submitted that P.W.-1, brother of the deceasd, has been examined before the trial Court and he has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically stated that he has no knowledge about the applicant and he stated that there was no quarrel between the applicant and the deceased. He further deposed that nobody told him that any other person had made exhortation or anybody had assaulted his brother. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that at this stage, delay in trial is certainly a point which may be considered by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is a complete violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the trial has not been concluded in view of the directions issued by this Court. He further submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and more than thirteen years have passed and the applicant is still languishing in jail since 06.05.2010. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-
"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 Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, 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, 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but he could not dispute the fact that the brother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case and applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail for more than 13 years.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the argument that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent against him, the argument that P.W.-1, the brother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case, the argument of period of incarceration of 13 years in jail in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court inK.A. Najeeb (supra) therefore, the argument has substance and I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant Pankaj Singh @ Rajnish Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with 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 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.
(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 her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(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 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. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
DiVYa
