Allahabad High Court
Neeraj @ Matru Jatav vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105137
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2893 of 2022
Applicant :- Neeraj @ Matru Jatav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari,Pradeep Chauhan,Raghuvansh Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 483 of 2021, under Sections 302/201 of I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Agra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, informant who is mother of the deceased lodged a First Information Report on 25.10.2021 at 12:57 hours for the alleged offence under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C. against the present applicant Neeraj @ Matru and one unknown person with the allegations inter-alia that her daughter was enticed away by the present applicant who is already a married person, about one year ago. F.I.R. further alleges that on 24.10.2021, she received information through police that at about 7:00 am, dead body of her daughter was found in a sack on a railway track near Sadar Bazar, Agra. Further she raised suspicion that the applicant Neeraj killed her daughter along with some accomplice and threw the dead body in a gunny bag on the railway track.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eyewitness of the incident. On 24.10.2021, decomposed body of Sonam (deceased) was found near railway line. Deceased was never married to the applicant. No witness was examined during investigation to establish the factum of marriage/cohabitation of the deceased with the applicant, no call detail records/tower locations were procured so as to test the complicity of the applicant. The deceased Sonam had left her house about 1-1/2 years ago, therefore, there is no proximity of time and place to establish the commission of her murder by the applicant.
Apart from the above submissions, the main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in this case, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 26.10.2021 having no criminal history to his credit, but till date, not a single prosecution witness has been examined before the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgement in the matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 731 further argued that the speedy trial is a legal right of the accused. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
On putting query, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant on merit but fairly conceded that prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in cases of circumstantial evidence, entire chain of circumstances on which conclusion or guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground of doubt. By order of this Court dated 24.02.2023, a report about present status of trial of the applicant was called for from the concerned Presiding Officer, who in turn, submitted its report dated 06.03.2023, which is on record, mentioning therein that in this case, there are total eighteen prosecution witnesses of charge-sheet, namely, Smt. Rani, Shri Girnari, Rinku Pal, Ranjeet Singh Kushwaha, Monu Sharma, Arvind Goyal, H.M. 848 Anand Prakash, Clerk Constable 4800 Sandeep Kumar, Dr. Ravi Kumar Yadav, Constable 2731 Anil Kumar, Constable 757 Ajit Kumar, Constable 2454 Shivam, Sub-Inspector Tejveer Singh, Constable 1775 Umesh Kumar, Constable 5114 Madhu Sharma, Home Guard 1857 Ramveer Singh, Constable 619 Ashok Kumar, Inspector Pramod Panwar. After submission of charge-sheet charge was framed against the applicant-Neeraj @ Matru and Co-accused Deepanshu on 18.05.2022, but despite repeated orders/directions issued by the trial Court to the prosecution, not a single prosecution witness has been produced before the trial Court.
Regarding long incarceration of under trial prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) has held as follows :-
16-"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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant-Neeraj @ Matru Jatav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Kashifa
