Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Singh Bundela vs State Of U.P. on 22 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182886
Court No. - 6
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41898 of 2024
Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Bundela
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.1 of 2024
Heard.
Correction application is allowed.
Necessary correction has been incorporated in the order dated 14.11.2024. The correct order shall read as under:
"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. 306 of 2024 at Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur under Sections 323, 504, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 25.04.2024.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.07.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Ajay Sengar, learned counsels on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. As per the prosecution case set out in the FIR, the principal offenders Sanjay Singh and the applicant inflicted the fatal knife injuries to the deceased as a result of which he became unconscious.
2. The postmortem report does not depict any knife injury, and thus contradicts the FIR. The injuries recorded in the postmortem report shows that there was no intent to kill.
3. The applicant was falsely nominated at the instigation of inimical parties in the village.
4. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from the principal offender.
5. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
6. 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 his 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- Sanjay Singh Bundela 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 rendered 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.
However, 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, Lalitpur 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, Lalitpur as well as Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail."
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
Ashish Tripathi
