Allahabad High Court
Som Veer vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108277
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14379 of 2023
Applicant :- Som Veer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav
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 second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 448 of 2019, under Section 302 of IPC, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application is rejected vide order dated 07.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36870 of 2020.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the first bail application there were two ground for refusal of the bail to the applicant firstly that he made extra judicial confession before some witnesses that he has committed the murder of his father and secondly, recovery of country made pistol is made on the pointing of the applicant while advancing argument on the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that so far as the witnesses of extra judicial witnesses confession is concerned, before whom it was alleged that applicant made extra judicial confession. The witnesses namely PW-1 Rati Ram, PW-2 Chandrapal, PW-3 Rishipal, PW-4 Chandrapal, PW-5 Mukesh and PW-6 Sabir were examined before the trial trial Court and they did not corroborate the fact that applicant ever made any extra judicial confession. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2020 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 Som Veer in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 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 :- 18.5.2023
Mohit
