Arvind Trivedi @ Guddan vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 17546 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


	                                                    
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143507
 
							   Reserved On:- 13.07.2023  
 
  							   Delivered On:- 17.07.2023                        
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19812 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Arvind Trivedi @ Guddan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

1. Heard Sri L.M. Singh, Advocate, Assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Arvind Trivedi @ Guddan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 333, 307, 302, 396, 412, 120-B, 34, 504, 506 of IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section ¾ Explosive Substance Act, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

3. An FIR was lodged on 03.07.2020 implicating 21 named and 60-70 unknown accused. It was alleged in the FIR in short that police party in the intervening night of 02/03.07.2021 raided the house of notorious criminal, Vikas Dubey, to nab him. Vikas Dubey and his associates opened fire on police personnels wherein 8 policemen died. The applicant was not named in the FIR during investigation. Named accused, Chhotu Shukla @ Akhilesh Kumar, was arrested and in his confessional statement, he disclosed the name of the applicant. However, his presence was not found in the alleged incident. He was admittedly at Mumbai alongwith his driver, Sushil Kumar Tiwari @ Sonu. After coming to know of his implication in this case, he surrendered before the Mumbai Police on 11.07.2020 and was brought by police to District- Kanpur Nagar on 14.07.2020. Confessional Statement of the applicant and co-accused, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, was recorded wherein they admitted that applicant is a distant relative of co-accused, Vikas Dubey. Co-accused, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, admitted that he had supplied money and arms to Vikas Dubey number of times on the instruction of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant never confessed to providing any assistance to co-accused, Vikas Dubey. It was confessed by co-accused, Sushil Kumar Tiwari @ Sonu, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application No. 4093/2021. He has submitted that the applicant is a political person was member and number times of district Panchayat. His wife is gram pradhan of Gram Sabha- Kudhwa, Police Station- Shivli, District- Kanpur Dehat. He has criminal history of six cases explained in paragraph 35 of the bail application. He has been acquitted in two cases, but he has not been convicted in any case till date. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.07.2020. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future. 

5. Learned counsel for State Sri Rupak Chaubey and learned AGA 1st has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant has supplied money, arms and ammunition to co-accused, Vikas Dubey. He took shelter in State of Maharashtra after the incident and co-accused, Sushil Tiwari @ Sonu, admitted the role of the applicant of supply of money, arms and ammunition to co-accused, Vikas Dubey. He has submitted that the applicant has criminal history of six cases as admitted by him. He has already been charge-sheeted in this case. Co-accused, Jaykant Bajpaei and Rekha Agnihotri, had also approached this Court and their bail applications have been rejected by this Court.

6. Learned AGA 1st has further pointed out that in the statement of the co-accused, Vipul Dubey, he has admitted that the applicant alongwith Jaykant Bajpaei, Prashant Shukla and Sushil Tiwari, often used to come to Vikas Dubey and used to provide him arms, ammunition and money. However, he admitted that the applicant and the accused named above were not present when the alleged incident took place.

7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the applicant has not been assigned any active role in the incident which resulted in murder of 8 policemen. His name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused, Sushil Tiwari and Vipul Dubey. One of the co-accused, Sushil Kumar Tiwary, has already been enlarged on bail who implicated the applicant. The confessional statement of co-accused, Chhotu Shukla, also implicates the applicant for being part of the team of co-accused, Vikas Dubey, but he has not stated that the applicant was involved in the incident. The applicant has also not accepted his role of supply of any arms, money and ammunition to the co-accused, Vikas Dubey, nor he has accepted in his statement before the police that he provided him any monetary aid. Co-accused, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, having similar role has been already enlarged on bail. Trial has not appears to have commenced. Confession of co-accused cannot be read against the applicant.

8. 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."

9. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; 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.

10. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

12. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

13. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days.

Order Date :- 17.07.2023

Abhishek