Allahabad High Court
Sanjay vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46291 of 2020
Applicant :- Sanjay
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shambhawi Shukla,Dileep Kumar(Senior Adv.),Najam Uz Zaman Khan,Rajrshi Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Susheel Kumar Singh,Ugrasen Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Najam Uz Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 395, 397, 506, 201 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahariya, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As reported by learned A.G.A. in all statement of ten witnesses is complete. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-11 was conducted on several dates but his cross-examination is still pending. In addition to it, the statement of PW-12, PW-13 has also been recorded and their cross-examination is pending.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that applicant is languishing in jail since 19.5.2014 and prosecution evidence is still not complete. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 13.9.2018 by this Court for want of prosecution and second bail application was rejected on merits on 4.3.2020 by this Court whereby the trial court was required to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The trial is still going on. There are twenty three prosecution witnesses of which thirteen have only been examined. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case Indrani Pratim Mukerjea versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022. Learned counsel has further stated that main accused person Babloo has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.9.2022 by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19308 of 2019. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact of parity with the co-accused person but they have stated that the trial may be expedited.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record, the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the applicant and also taking into consideration that co-accused persons including main accused Babloo have been enlarged on bail by this Court, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Sanjay involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). 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 or tamper with the evidence.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
11. However, it is directed that the court below shall taken every endeavor to proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either parties, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
12. 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 :- 19.1.2023
Vikas
