Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Singh vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116763
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38294 of 2021
Applicant :- Abhishek Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey
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. 441 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia 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 sole basis of the case of the prosecution is the C.D.R./Data relating to video call of witness Narad Yadav who stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he made a video call to the number of informant from his mobile number and deceased informed the informant that the present applicant has committed his murder. Several opportunity was granted to the prosecution but in the compliance affidavit dated 27.04.2022 this information is brought on record that such record shall be archived only one year and thereafter it will be destroyed no such data more than one year can be retrieved. The investigating officer failed to collect the material evidence apart from it. It is also submitted that no motive has been assigned to the applicant and confessional statement of the applicant is recorded which is not permissible in the eye of law. No incriminating article has been made from the possession of the applicant. Applicant has one criminal history except the present one which is explained in paragraph 16 of the bail application in which he has been released on bail. Lastly it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2021 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 disclosed the aforesaid aspect with regard to the non availability of data which is the basis of the case of the prosecution.
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 Abhishek Singh 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
