Allahabad High Court
Arvind Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12651 of 2022
Applicant :- Arvind Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Om Ojha,Raj Kishor Mishra,Rishi Kant Rai,Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Chauhan,Shyama Charan Tripathi
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Shyama Charan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Arvind Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail incase crime no.434 of 2018 under sections 307, 302, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of trial.
This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.7.2021, which is not available.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 01.12.2018. Earlier also the applicant was falsely implicated in one case wherein he was exonerated by the Investigating Officer. Before the trial court, three prosecution witnesses have been examined and one of them is the independent witness, who has not identified the applicant. Two other witnesses are interested witnesses because they had prior enmity with the applicant and they have identified the applicant as an accused. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that not three but five prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Only formal witnesses remains to be examined.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"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."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) 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.
(iv) The applicant will appear before the C.J.M., Gorakhpur, in the first week of every month after he is released on bail and till the conclusion of trial.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Ruchi Agrahari
