Allahabad High Court
Rajnesh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104102
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36509 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajnesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar,Chandra Sen Pal,Firdos Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shweta Singh Rana
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2022. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
The new ground that has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the first bail application this Court had directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months, but the same is pending yet and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the same. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.11.2019 and he has no criminal history at his credit.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submission drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-
"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."
The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) has observed as under:
"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then a period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character and criminal history of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, delay in conclusion of trial, dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) and and period of incarceration of applicant in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let the applicant Rajnesh involved in Case Crime No. 1303 of 2019, under Sections 376, 313, 328, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-
(i) 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;
(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
(iii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023
Bhanu
