Allahabad High Court
Layak Singh vs State Of U.P. on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2087 of 2020
Applicant :- Layak Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Apul Misra,Ashutosh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinay Kumar Pathak,Manoj Pathak,Vinay Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.405 of 2014 (Sessions Trial No.677 of 2015), under Sections 302/174A I.P.C., Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. This is the fourth bail application on behalf of the applicant although no new ground for bail could be taken up except the period of incarceration and also the fact that the third bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2019 whereby the trial court was required to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment within a period of six months. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has stated that the certified copy of the order was served in the court on 1.6.2019 as such the period has itself expired on 30.11.2019. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated in view of him being incarcerated in jail since 18.11.2015 i.e. about eight years.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground of criminal history of fifteen cases assigned to the applicant of which four cases are of murder. It is further submitted that the applicant is a previous convict in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. and is not entitled for bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, as a last opportunity it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, and the judgment be pronounced, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Vikas
