Allahabad High Court
Mushaid vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24192 of 2020
Applicant :- Mushaid
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.281 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC, and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pakbada, District-Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The first bail application of the applicant Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39682 of 2018 has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018.
It is submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that after the rejection of first bail application, charge-sheet was filed and the witnesses who were named in the first information report such as Ravindra, Asad, Rajesh and Gaj Nafar were not made witnesses in the charge-sheet while in the first information report, the informant has mentioned that these persons were present at the time of incident. Apart from it, one Rahat Jan who informed the informant about the incident is also not made witness in the charge-sheet. He further submitted that during course of trial these witnesses P.W.1 Aslam and P.W.2 Mohd. Nafees have been examined and the other prosecution witness of fact Smt. Chhoti who was wife of the informant and mother of the deceased has died. It is further submitted that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2017 i.e. more than five and half years 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 has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
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, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, 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- Mushaid in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 :- 3.5.2023
SP/-
