Allahabad High Court
Jogendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85603
Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1572 of 2024
Applicant :- Jogendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Present fourth bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant to enlarge the applicant on bail in S.T. No. 480 of 2016, Case Crime No. 159 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the present application. The first, second and third bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide orders dated 20.1.2017, 10.8.2018 and 13.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2538 of 2017, 49358 of 2017 and 3105 of 2021, respectively.
3. 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 furhter submitted that out of fifteen witnesses, six prosecution witnesses including witness of fact such as Parmatma Singh (P.W.1), Akhilesh Singh (P.W. 3), Dharmendra (P.W.4), S.I. A.K. Misra (P.W.5) and Ramesh Pratap Pandey (P.W. 6) have been recorded. The opportunity of cross examination of P.W. 4 was closed by the court concerned and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed on 9.1.2024. Latest order sheet is brought on record. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.05.2016. Lastly, it is submitted that since witness of fact has been recorded so there is no chance of absconding or tempering the witnesses if the applicant would be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. Let the applicant Jogendra Singh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and TWO HEAVY AND LOCAL 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.
8. 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 :- 13.5.2024
SY
