Allahabad High Court
Suraj Gond @ Suraj Kumar Gond 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. - 16487 of 2023
Applicant :- Suraj Gond @ Suraj Kumar Gond
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
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 entire record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 115 of 2021 (Session Trial No. 746 of 2021), under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17773 of 2022.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the additional ground in this second bail application is that statements of witnesses of fact such as PW-1, Subhash Chandra (informant) who is father of the deceased, PW-2 Arvind Kumar who is brother of deceased, PW-3 Smt. Archna who is sister of the deceased, who are witnesses of fact, have already been recorded and thereafter, statement of PW-4, Dr. Praveer Ranjan Mishra, has also been recorded. It reflects that witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no chance of tampering the witnesses of fact by the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2021, 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 but could not dispute the aspect that the witnesses of fact have already been examined.
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, Suraj Gond @ Suraj Kumar Gond, 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 :- 3.5.2023
Suraj
