Allahabad High Court
Kulket Patkar vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46800 of 2020
Applicant :- Kulket Patkar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Tripathi,Nitesh Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Pandey,Sunita Chauhan,Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Singh
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 178 of 2020, under Sections 302, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Akberpur, District Kanpur Dehat, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. During the course of investigation one knife is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of knife. The recovery is totally false. It is further submitted that all the witnesses of fact, namely, PW-1-Vakeel Khan, PW-2-Moin Khan (uncle of the deceased), PW-3-Rafeek Khan and PW-4-Dr. Sapan Kumar Gupta have been examined before the Trial Court. There is no possibility of tampering the witnesses by the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 07.03.2020 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and the knife used in the crime has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
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 submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant, Kulket Patkar, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties 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 :- 2.5.2023
Ashutosh
