Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Prajapati Alias ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60504
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7406 of 2022
Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Prajapati Alias Sikhranjan S/O Sri Hanoman (Second Bail)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail bail application bearing Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 8410 of 2018 was heard and rejected by the Court on 23.09.2021.
3. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
4. This bail application has been filed seeking release of the accused/applicant Pawan Kumar Prajapati Alias Sikhranjan on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 649 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C., and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 23.09.2021, this Court directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months but till date, trial has not been concluded and only fact witnesses have been examined and viscera report is still awaited. He further submitted that the maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-B is seven years and applicant has already undergone more than five years sentence and is languishing in jail since 16.02.2018.
6. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712. Para 16 of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:-
"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 Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, 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, 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."
7. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the deceased was not happy with her marriage and she remained in her in-laws' house only for 18 days, therefore she committed suicide by hanging herself. He further submitted that the except the ligature mark, no other injury is found on the body of the deceased. He further submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 16.02.2018.
8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and has submitted that after a detailed investigation, charge sheet was filed but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is in jail for more than 5 years.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the argument that applicant has already undergone more than half of the sentence and there is no previous criminal antecedent against him and except for the ligature mark, no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased, the argument of period of incarceration of 5 years and 8 months in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court inK.A. Najeeb (supra) therefore, the argument has substance and I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant Pawan Kumar Prajapati Alias Sikhranjan S/O Sri Hanoman be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
12. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023
DiVYa
