Allahabad High Court
Ravi Singh @ Bunty Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. on 21 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38564
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9322 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravi Singh @ Bunty Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Mishra,Avinash Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 09.10.2017 in Case Crime No.228 of 2017, under Sections 302 & 307 IPC, Police Station ? Fatanpur, District ? Pratapgarh.
3. This is the second bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7257 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 12.10.2022, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.228 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, Police Station Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh.
3. Allegation against the accused-applicant and co-accused is of firing at the deceased Abdul @ Kotal. Two persons had died because of the firearm injuries allegedly caused by the accused-applicant.
4. As per the report submitted by the trial court dated 10.8.2022, the trial is in progress and three witnesses have been examined. The trial is taking time as co-accused is in the District Jail, Ayodhya and despite being summoned, the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Ayodhya is not sending the co-accused to the trial court for facing the trial.
5. Accused-applicant has criminal history of ten cases, including the present case, which has been mentioned in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, evidence available against the accused-applicant and the fact that two person got killed in the hands of the accused-applicant and co-accused, this Court does to find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.
7. Bail application is accordingly rejected.
8. The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Ayodhya is directed to make arrangement for appearance of the accused co-accused, Shiv Kumar Giri @ Baba through the facility of video conferencing on each and every date before the trial court, and if it is not possible, the accused-applicant should be produced physically.
9. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of six months.
10. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial court and the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Ayodhya forthwith for compliance."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the first bail application of the present applicant has been rejected on merits, therefore, he will not address those grounds, which have already been argued before this Court at the time of disposal of first bail application, but he respectfully submits that while rejecting the first bail application of the present applicant on 12.10.2022 (supra), this Court directed to expedite and conclude the trial, if possible, within a period of six months but about one year and seven months' period has passed w.e.f. 12.10.2022, the trial has not been concluded till date. Learned counsel has submitted that out of total nineteen prosecution witnesses, only five prosecution witnesses, who are mainly the fact/ relevant witnesses, have been examined. In the given circumstances, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded shortly, therefore, considering the period of long incarceration of the applicant i.e. more than six years and seven months in jail, he may be enlarged on bail. He has also submitted that the aforesaid ground may be considered as a fresh ground to consider the second bail application.
5. 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, five fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 first bail application on 12.10.2022 to conclude the trial within a period of six months, about one year and seven months' period has passed, the trial has not been concluded till date. Further, five fact/ relevant 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; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than six years and seven months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Ravi Singh alias Bunty Singh 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.
10. 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 :- 21.5.2024
RBS/-
