Allahabad High Court
Ravi Shankar Alias Ravi Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. on 30 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41337
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15159 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Alias Ravi Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suryakant Singh,Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra,Nagarjun Pandey,Rituraj Mishra,Saurabh Yadav,Shesh Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aniruddh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the informant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the copy of statement of PW-6 Amrendra Pratap Singh, the same is taken on record.
3. At the very outset, Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in the present case which reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. While arguing the second bail application, the counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the three witnesses recorded during trial, wherein P.W. 1 did not support the prosecution story, P.W. 2 has been declared hostile and P.W. 3 has also not supported the prosecution story during cross-examination. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that noticing these subsequent facts, the co-accused Sunita Pandey was enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.12.2023. While granting bail to the said co-accused, this Court had noticed the statement of the three prosecution witnesses and had also considered that the applicant herein is a lady and was in custody for more than two years.
3. I have perused the charge sheet, which indicates that the prosecution intends to produce as many as 22 witnesses, out of the said one eye witness has already deposed and was declared hostile. Considering the fact that another witness namely Amrendra Pratap Singh is proposed to be adduced as eye witness, I deem it appropriate to direct that the statement of the said witness namely Amrendra Pratap Singh may be recorded within a period of six weeks without giving any adjournments by the trial Court.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar is directed to ensure that the said eye witness is produced before the Court below for giving his evidence within the time as granted by this Court.
5. The Trial Court is directed to send its report in compliance of the directions given herein above, by the next date fixed.
6. List this case on 15th May, 2024 before the appropriate Court."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in compliance of the order dated 20.03.2024 the evidence of PW-6-Amrendra Pratap Singh has been recorded and he has been cross-examined.
5. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Hon'ble B.R.Singh, J vide order dated 11.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12578 of 2021.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he shall not address the Court on those grounds, which have already been argued at the time of disposal of the first bail application and he shall address only those grounds which may be considered as fresh ground to consider the second bail application.
7. The present applicant is in jail since 02.08.2021 in Case Crime No.110 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station- Bhiti, District- Ambedkar Nagar.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are total 22 prosecution witnesses, out of them six prosecution witnesses have been examined. Out of these 6 prosecution witnesses, 5 prosecution witnesses are the material/fact witnesses. The aforesaid examination has taken place after rejection of the first bail application of the present applicant. He has further stated that looking into the pace of trial there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore considering the fact that all the material/fact witnesses have been examined and also total period of incarceration in judicial custody of the applicant is about three years, therefore, he may be released on bail for the reason that the accused applicant too has got the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial which is not possible in the present case.
9. He has also submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant on 11.04.2023, this Court granted bail to the co-accused Suneeta Pandey bearing Criminal Misc Bail Application No.7909 of 2023 vide order dated 20.12.2023, therefore, this may be another new ground to consider the bail of the present applicant. In the bail order of co-accused Suneeta Pandey this Court had considered that PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution story; rather PW-2 has been turned hostile. He has also stated that since all fact/material witnesses have been examined, therefore, on that ground too the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further reiterated that P.W-1, P.W.-3 and P.W-5 have not supported the prosecution version and P.W-2 and P.W-6 have been turned hostile. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.
10. 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, eleven 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.
11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that there are some clinching evidence against the present applicant and on his pointing out the weapon used to commit crime in question i.e. licensed pistol has been recovered and he has been attributed the main role of firing. However, he has submitted that he has no objection if a direction is issued for expediting the trial of the case.
12. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the trial has not been concluded till date; there are total 22 prosecution witnesses out of which six material/fact witnesses have been examined; 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) and considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
14. Let applicant-Ravi Shankar alias Ravi Pandey 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.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Renu/-
