Vikky @ Vikas @ Chausath vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 8134 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52130 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vikky @ Vikas @ Chausath
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Kuldeep Kumar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vikky @ Vikas @ Chausath, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 607 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 147, 120B, 201 IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.

There is allegation in the FIR that the son of the informant, Rupak, aged about 20 years was called from his house on 25.06.20220 in the evening by co-accused, Sagar, Vikash, the applicant and Arvind from his house. There were two other boys also and informant, suspected that the murder of her son was committed by them.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident took place on 25.06.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 11.07.2020, after about 16 days delay. The police station is only 8 kilometers away from the place of incident, but there is no explanation of delay in the FIR. Prior to the lodging of FIR on 11.07.2020, missing report was lodged on 27.06.2020 by the informant wherein it was stated that his son left his house without informing anything. The applicant alongwith four co-accused persons was arrested and joint recovery of a country-made pistol and an axe were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused, Manish @ Pammu. After 21 days, their confessional statements were recorded. The dead body of the deceased was not recovered, but from a borewell, human hair and skin was found by the police and DNA sample of the parents of the deceased was taken for examination by forensic expert. Charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant and two co-accused and two unnamed, co-accused, Arvind and Mohan, were exonerated by the Investigating Officer. He has submitted that in the FIR, the role of calling the son of the deceased from his house was assigned to the applicant and two co-accused, namely, Sagar and Arvind by the informant, but Arvind has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer which proves that the prosecution allegations were not correct. He has further submitted that from the report of the court below, it is clear that only P.W.-1, the informant has been examined on 06.03.2023 and thereafter, he is not turning up before the court. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 17.07.2020. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

This Court had call for status of trial from the court below which shows that the statement of not even one prosecution witness has been concluded till date. There are 14 prosecution witnesses, the applicant is under trial and cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely when the prosecution is not serious about prosecuting him.

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, 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.

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.

Order Date :- 21.3.2023

Abhishek