Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 36877 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 11 November, 2024

Author: Ajay Bhanot

Bench: Ajay Bhanot

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176760
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36680 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Guddoo Kumar,Rajeev Kumar Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
 

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2023 at Police Station Mugrabadshahpur, District Jaunpur under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2023.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 01.02.2024.

The following arguments made by Mr. Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Mr. Guddoo Kumar, counsel on behalf of the first informant and Mr. Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The deceased disappeared in the evening of 13.12.2023. No missing report or information of the aforesaid abduction was promptly made to the concerned police authorities.

2. The FIR was lodged on 14.12.2023.

3. The delay in lodgment of the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case in the facts of the present case.

4. The postmortem report contradicts the time of prosecution case set out in the FIR.

5. The applicant did not make any phone-call to the first informant.

6. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence unlike the other principal offender.

7. The witnesses of last seen were set up belatedly by the police authorities only to save the failing prosecution case. There was no good cause for failure of the said witnesses to promptly inform the family of the deceased or the police authorities about the event of last seen. Secondly, the said nomination has been made at the instigation of inimical parties in the village and as an afterthought.

8. One knife and a country made pistol was planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to burnish the credentials of the police investigators without diligent investigations. There is no independent witness to the recovery.

9. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.

10. The applicant has explained his criminal history.

11. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

Learned counsels for the first informant contend that the applicant is trying to delay the trial proceedings.

Rejoining the issue, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never influenced the witnesses or tampered with the evidence. The applicant did not adopt any dilatory tactics or impede the process of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Inordinate delay in concluding trial will to an indefinite detention of the applicant. Various other aspects which cause delays in trials in the State of Uttar Pradesh have been highlighted. The submissions of the learned counsel are well founded and are liable to be addressed.

The learned trial court has to faithfully implement the legislative mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court is also under an obligation of law to realize the fundamental rights of an accused to a speedy trial.

Considering the gravity of the offence, interest of justice will be served by directing the learned trial court to expedite the trial.

Though no specific time frame to conclude the trial has been set out in the Cr.P.C., yet the legislative intent of Section 309 Cr.P.C. is explicit. The scheme of the provision clearly shows that the legislative intent is to conclude the trial in an expeditious time frame. In the facts of this case, the learned trial court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. Preferably the trial court shall set for itself a reasonable time frame to conclude the trial say one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial.

The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.

The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed.

The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court.

The delay in the trials caused by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons or execute coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses at the trial despite a statutory mandate, is an issue of grave concern. The said issue had arisen for consideration before this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023). This Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) had issued certain directions to the police authorities regarding their statutory duty to promptly serve summons and execute coercive processes to compel the appearance of witnesses.

The Director General of Police, Government of U.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. had taken out relevant orders in compliance of judgements in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and nominated the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts as the nodal officials for implementing the said judgments.

The counsels as well as the learned trial court are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Noor Alam Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53159 of 2021. In case any strike happens during the course of the trial, the learned trial court is directed to ensure full compliance of the directions issued in Noor Alam (supra) to prevent delay in the trial.

In case the police authorities are failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) and do not implement the said directions of the Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. in regard to service of summons and execution of coercive measures to compel the appearance of witnesses, the learned trial court shall direct the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit in this regard.

The learned trial court shall be under an obligation to examine whether the judgements of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) & Jitendra (supra) as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof have been implemented or not and to take appropriate action as per law.

The learned trial court shall also take appropriate measures in law after receipt of such affidavit which may include summoning the concerned officials in person.

It is further directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge.

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Jaunpur as well as Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail.

Order Date :- 11.11.2024

Ashutosh