Allahabad High Court
Jatin Tyagi vs State Of U.P. on 18 October, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202857
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22310 of 2023
Applicant :- Jatin Tyagi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Chaudhari,Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Dhaka
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 198 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 and 34 of I.P.C. Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, informant Jai Bhagwan was examined as P.W.-1 during trial who did not corroborate the version of the F.I.R and was turned hostile. P.W.-2, Himanshu Arya who happens to be eye witness of the incident and independent witness of the recovery made on the pointing out of appellant was also examined and he also turned hostile. It is further submitted that as if now there is no evidence against the appellant on record. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2022 and criminal history of the appellant is explained in paragraph-51 of the affidavit. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant but could not dispute the fact that informant and eye witness have turned hostile.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 Jatin Tyagi 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 :- 18.10.2023
PS
