Allahabad High Court
Shripal vs State Of U.P. on 22 November, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183057
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18314 of 2024
Applicant :- Shripal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav,Vidya Dhar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Lal
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. This is the fifth bail application on behalf of the applicant. The fourth one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47287 of 2023.
3. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.85 of 2018, under Section 302 and 307 IPC, Police Station Dhanari, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded and it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 19.05.2018 and six years and six months have passed since his incarceration.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Praveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan and another. It has been held as under :
"1. The petitioner seeks enlargement on regular bail in FIR No.69/2018, dated 12.04.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar, for an offence under Section 302, 120- B IPC.
2. The above-stated FIR has been lodged on a complaint made by Mahadev Meena, who has alleged, inter alia, that his son ? Chetan Prakash got married with Anita Meena on 21.01.2011. He was, thereafter, selected as Assistance Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Bureau. Anita was working as a second grade teacher, at that time, and later on, she got appointment as First Grade Lecturer in a Senior Secondary School. He further alleged that the petitioner (Praveen Rathore) was also working as an Officer in the Intelligence Bureau. He came in close contact to his daughter-in- law (Anita Meena) and when his son ? Chetan Prakash objected to it, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant's son was found unconscious near railway culvert on 14.02.2018 and was declared as dead when he was taken to the hospital. His nails of hands and legs were found to be blue.
3. As per the FSL Report, the cause of death was a drug Ketamine, which was injected to the deceased.
4. The co-accused Shahrukh Khan, who was arrested on 19.06.2018, also revealed that the deceased was injected with drug Ketamine. The petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2018. He was released on bail by the High Court on 12.02.2021. The said bail order was challenged by the complainant before this Court. Criminal Appeal No.1089/2021 @ SLP(Crl.)No.4072 of 2021, preferred by the complainant, was allowed by this Court on 27.09.2021, and the order of granting bail to the petitioner was set aside. He was, thus, again taken into custody. The petitioner, thereafter, again applied for his release on bail but the same stands declined by the Trial Court as well as the High Court vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2023.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, by now, has undergone more than four and a half years' of sentence. The prosecution intends to examine 76 witnesses, out of whom 53 have already deposed. All the crucial witnesses have already been examined. The instant case was adjourned on few occasions to enable the prosecution to examine Chauthmal Kashyap and Manohar Rathore, who were stated to be the vital witnesses. Their deposition is also complete.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
7. Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody coupled with the fact that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to release him on bail.
8. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date of hearing. Any attempt made by the petitioner to influence the witnesses, who are yet to depose, or try to tamper with the evidence, will be a sufficient ground for the complainant or the State to seek cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein by moving an appropriate application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
10. The Trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court in this regard.
11. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of."
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at its logical end and except certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded, there is no new ground. There is likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and as it is generally speaking, "the bail is a rule and jail an exception but in the case, when the trial is at its conclusive end, the said condition reversed to jail a rule and bail an exception." I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
Priya
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
