Allahabad High Court
Krishna vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 6.1.2023
DELIVERED ON 17.1.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17095 of 2019
Applicant :- Krishna
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena,Ambuj Kumar Mishra,Deepak Gaur,Kuldeep Saxena,Rajiv Shukla,Ram Ashish Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Krishna with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019, under Sections 302,201,404 and 411 IPC Police Station Kotwali, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial.
There is no allegation against the applicant in the First Information Report and allegations are against the named co-accused,Sachin and Nitin. The role assigned to the applicant is that he has been found in possession of ring of the deceased, which has been recovered from him. He has been assigned the role of taking the deceased to the place of occurrence and role of murder has not been assigned to him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the most allegation under sections 404,411 I.P.C. is made out against him.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contention.
After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that role of the applicant is different from the co-accused, Sachin and Nitin.The applicant is in jail since 26.2.2019 and has no criminal history.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above,finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the 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.
Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. That 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 or to any police officer;
5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
6. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Atul kr. sri.
