Allahabad High Court
Matarua @ Vinod vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86953
Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2135 of 2024
Appellant :- Matarua @ Vinod
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Km. Khushi,Neetu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Sri Sarthak Singh, learned Advocate filed Vakalatnama along with counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today. The same be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This second criminal appeal is preferred against the bail rejection order dated 2.3.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 District Chitrakoot in Sessions Trial No.385 of 2023 (State vs. Matarua @ Vinod) in bail application No.217 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.230 of 2023 under Section 302 of IPC, and under Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station Karvi, District Chitrakoot. Further, it has been prayed to release the appellant on bail in the said case crime.
The first criminal appeal of the appellant was rejected by this Court on merit, vide order dated 4.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10318 of 2023.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of informant (PW-1) Bhagwandeen, mother of the deceased Gyanmati (PW-2) and sister of the deceased Sangeeta (PW-3) are recorded and all the three witnesses did not corroborate the version of the prosecution and were declared hostile. It is submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.4.2023, having no criminal history.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2, opposed the prayer and submitted that an application under Section 311 of Cr PC is moved by the informant before the trial Court since the witnesses were tutored and their statements were recorded under pressure.
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."
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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Let appellant, Matarua @ Vinod, be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime 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 appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The appellant will not influence any witness.
(3). The appellant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The appellant 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
RKK/-
