Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38453 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai, ,Dashrath Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
The present fourth bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.96 of 2015, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 324, 452, 308, 304 of IPC, Police Station Handia, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First, second and third bail application of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 27.07.2016, 02.05.2017 and 18.05.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24086 of 2016, 6464 of 2017, 15952 of 2018 respectively.
The only ground taken by learned counsel for the applicant vide paragraph 9 of the affidavit annexed with the bail application is that charges against applicant were framed on 08.06.2017 but till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined before the learned trial Court. The entire order sheet dated 21.08.2019 is filed. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.06.2016 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that applicant is principal offender and earlier his bail applications have been considered and rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that applicant has undergone incarceration around seven years, without expressing any opinion on 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 Ram Chandra Yadav in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023
Mohit
