Allahabad High Court
Smt. Arti W/O Jeetu @ Munna vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. on 13 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36745
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3851 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Arti W/O Jeetu @ Munna
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 30.09.2021 in FIR/Case Crime No.498 of 2021, under Sections 366, 344, 323, 506, 120-B & 376 (2) D of IPC, Police Station ? Gazipur, District ? Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the present case, all relevant fact/ relevant prosecution witnesses have been examined and only one formal witness, namely, Inspector Rajesh Yadav is to be examined, however, despite notices being issued to the then Inspector, he could not appear. Thereafter, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant have been issued against him. After that, notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. has been issued. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant, she may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further submitted that one formal witness is still to be examined; thereafter, the defence witnesses would be examined; after that, required exercise under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would be carried out; thereafter, the case would be listed for final arguments, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future.
4. 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, all relevant fact/ prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that she 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.
5. 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.
6. Notably, in compliance of the order of this Court, learned trial court has submitted status report of the trial vide letter dated 28.02.2024, which is on record. The aforesaid report affirms the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that all relevant fact/ prosecution witnesses have been examined and still one formal prosecution witness is to be examined, thereafter the defence witnesses would be examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than two years and seven months; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Smt. Arti be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
RBS/-
