Allahabad High Court
Rajeev vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116901
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38380 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajeev
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar,Rabindra Bahadur Singh
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. 0266 of 2020, under Section 364, 302, 201, 114, 34 IPC Police Station Munda, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
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 the role of the applicant involvement in the crime has been described by the co-accused Manju, who happens to be the wife of the deceased Sukhpal Singh. The co-accused Manju in her additional statement stated that she along with the present applicant and other co-accused Raj Kumar committed the murder of Sukhpal Singh. It is also submitted that on pointing of the co-accused Manju and present applicant the dead body of deceased was recovered and an iron rod is also recovered from the pointing of the applicant but as per statement of Manju no role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Manju who happens to be main accused has already been granted bail by this Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26307 of 2022. It is also submitted that role of the co-accused Raj Kumar is distinguishable with the present applicant and also the role of applicant is lesser than the role of co-accused Manju. Lastly it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.07.2021 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 argued that the applicant only participated in the murder of deceased Sukhpal Singh with co-accused Manju and Raj Kumar.
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 Rajeev 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 :- 24.5.2023/Gaurav
