Allahabad High Court
Ramu Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 1 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106421
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52562 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramu Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Singh Yadav,G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and counter affidavit filed by State are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 15 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Vrandavan, District Mathura with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 12.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7127 of 2019.
4. 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 a direction was given to learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one year after receipt of the certified copy of the order without granting unnecessary adjournment. The trial is still pending. It is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 08.01.2018 and the minimum sentence provided under Section 304B of IPC is seven years. It is further submitted that another direction was issued by this Court to conclude trial within stipulated time on 12.03.2024. All the witnesses of fact have been recorded and the matter is pending for recording of the evidence of formal witness. It is also submitted that on the application made by prosecution two sessions trial are consolidated and there is no possibility of early disposal of the matter. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer and submitted that the order of the court for expeditious disposal was produced before the court on 23.10.2023 thereafter court witnesses have been recorded.
6. Perused the record.
7. It is not disputed that the witness of fact has been recorded. Therefore, there is no chance of tempering the material witnesses.
8. 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."
9. 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 present second bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant Ramu Yadav 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.
11. 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 :- 1.7.2024
Mohit
