Allahabad High Court
Jitendra vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108091
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35902 of 2020
Applicant :- Jitendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Rishi Kant Rai,Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay
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 present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.39 of 2019, under Sections 366/376 120B IPC, Police Station Bilsanda, District-Pilibhit with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the victim is major and as per radiological report her age is determined to be 18-19 years. During her medical examination, no injury was found. It is also submitted that the victim was a consenting party and the applicant and the victim were meeting frequently with each other. Since the present case was lodged against the applicant, therefore, the applicant has refused to meet the victim and due to this reason, the victim gave statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant. Medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant and co-accused. It is also submitted that after examination of two prosecution witnesses, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial Court to summon other accused persons which is allowed and five other accused are summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to face the trial. Therefore, there is no possibility that trial may be concluded in the near future. It is further submitted that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2019 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 and submitted that two prosecution witnesses have been examined and on the basis of the statements of these witnesses, co-accused, namely, Mangal, Ramvaran, Paatiram, Ajit and Meena Devi have been summoned to face trial. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
The present applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2019 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in the near future since after summoning of the such accused, the statement of prosecution witnesses, already recorded, has to be recorded again.
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- Jitendra 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 :- 17.5.2023
SP/-
