Allahabad High Court
Ram Pujan Alias Jilau Alias Shiv Pujan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34580
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1787 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Poojan Alias Jilau Alias Shiv Pujan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh,Ajmal Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ganesh Dutt Bhatt, learned AGA for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 09.07.2018 in Case Crime No.87 of 2018, under Sections 302, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Malipur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
3. This is the fourth bail application. First bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Anant Kumar, J. vide order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Bail No.9042 of 2018. Second bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J. vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Bail No.7767 of 2019. Third bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9338 of 2021. While rejecting third bail application on 29.04.2022, this Court has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This is the third bail application. First and second bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 9.4.2019 and 10.3.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9042 of 2018 and 7767 of 2019 respectively.
3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in S.T. No.170 of 2018, Case Crime No.87 of 2018, under Sections 302, 34, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Malipur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant very fairly submits that all witnesses of fact have already been examined.
5. Considering the above facts and without dealing with the merit of the case, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage when all the witnesses of fact have been examined.
6. Bail application is accordingly rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and decided the same, preferably, within a period of six months."
4. In terms of the aforesaid order, the trial should be concluded within a period of six months from 29.04.2022. Copy of the High Court order has been supplied to the learned trial court as learned trial court has itself took cognizance of the High Court order in its order dated 10.05.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he will not address those points to the Court, which have already been addressed at the time of rejection of first, second and third bail applications, but he will address only those points, which may be considered as new grounds to consider the fourth bail application.
6. Sri Khan has submitted that despite taking cognizance of the order of the High Court, the trial has not been concluded within time so stipulated. Further, there are total sixteen prosecution witnesses and seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, as per the status report being provided by the learned trial court vide report dated 12.03.2024, which is on record. Learned counsel has submitted that all fact witnesses have been examined and now, examination of formal witnesses is going on. He has further submitted that looking into the pace of the trial, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future and all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the aforesaid grounds taking those grounds as fresh/ new grounds. Sri Khan has drawn attention of this Court towards para-19 of the bail application wherein he has categorically stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re;Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, seven fact/ material witnesses have been examined. Further, the Apex Court in re; Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2022, (SLP (Crl.) No.4633 of 2021) dated 25.02.2022, has held that period of long detention of the accused may be considered even if the issue is pending consideration before the appellate court. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.
8. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
9. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the third bail application on 29.04.2022 to conclude the trial within a period of six months, the trial has not been concluded till date. Further, all fact/ material witnesses have been examined and still some prosecution witnesses are to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) and Saudan Singh (supra) and considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about six years, he may be granted bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let applicant- Ram Poojan alias Jilau alias Shiv Pujan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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 him 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.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
12. Before parting with, learned trial court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
RBS/-
