Allahabad High Court
Jaspreet Singh S/O Shri Indra Pal ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9416 of 2022
Applicant :- Jaspreet Singh S/O Shri Indra Pal Singh (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.S. Rathaur,Ravi Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sachchidanand Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 5.9.2020 in F.I.R. No. 270 of 2020 u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mill Area, District Rae Bareli. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. This is second bail application.
First bail application has been rejected on 5.5.2022. While rejecting the bail application the direction was issued to the learned trial court to expedite the trial within nine months taking all necessary steps as per law by fixing short dates.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that more than ten months period have passed but trial has not been concluded till date. He has further submitted that there are total 26 prosecution witnesses and out of them only three fact witnesses have been examined till date. Still two fact witnesses are to be examined, therefore, Sri Rathaur has stated that keeping in view the progress of the trial there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future inasmuch as total 26 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, therefore, in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 present applicant may be granted bail. For convenience para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below :
"16. 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."
Besides, he has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W. 1 recorded on 21.5.2022 which has been filed with the bail application which discloses that the prosecution witness no. 1 namely Kalyan Singh who is informant himself has not supported the prosecution story. Sri Rathaur has stated that keeping in a view the evidence of informant he should have been declared hostile but he has not been declared hostile for the reason best known to the trial court concerned. Further, attention has been drawn towards evidence of P.W.-2 Baljeet Singh Gandhi which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 31.10.2022. Said Baljeet Singh is an eye witness who has not supported the prosecution version in his chief-examination, therefore, he has been declared hostile. Further, attention has been drawn towards the certified copy of order dated 14.2.2023 filed along with disposal of second bail application dated 2.3.2023 which provides that the prosecution witness Baljeet sing Gandhi has been discharged by the learned trial court vide order dated 14.2.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that out of five fact witnesses the evidence of three fact witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the present applicant is in jail since 5.9.2020 in F.I.R. No. 270 of 2020 u/s 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mill Area, District Rae Bareli. He has further submitted that since the present applicant is in jail since 5.9.2020 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history by filing an affidavit dated 21.3.2023 to submit that in the case in hand one Case Crime No. 0299 of 2020 u/s 3/25 Arms Act is pending wherein the present applicant has not applied his bail.
The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that this is second bail application of the applicant and two eye witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, the present applicant may not be granted bail. However, on being confronted on the point that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court on 5.5.2022 more than about 10 months period have passed but there is no good progress in the trial, the learned AGA has stated that those facts are the matter of record, therefore, he has nothing to say.
Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court on 5.5.2022 the trial has not been concluded within time stipulated, out of total 26 prosecution witnesses only three prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, prima facie it appears that trial would not complete in near future, so the benefit of the dictum of Apex Court in re: K.A. Najeeb (supra) may be extended to the applicant keeping in view the period of his incarceration in the jail and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Jaspreet Singh, involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 27.3.2023/Om
