Allahabad High Court
Guddu Urf Aditya vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161307
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30343 of 2024
Applicant :- Guddu Urf Aditya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 at Police Station-Titavi District-Muzaffarnagar under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 21.03.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.06.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi Chadha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. Briefly the prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the deceased went with one Kirosh in a bullock cart. The said Kirosh returned home with the bullock cart. The said Kirosh did not inform the first informant about the whereabouts of the deceased. The deceased did not return home in the evening. In the evening the family of the deceased went out in search of him. The body of the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood in the agricultural fields. Some unknown persons had done the deceased to death.
2. There is no direct evidence against the applicant.
3. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence.
4. Subsequently, a witness of last seen was set up by the police only to save the failing prosecution case. The said Kirosh was later set up as a witness of last seen. The statement of the said Kirosh is unreliable for various reasons. There was no good cause for failure of the said Kirosh to promptly inform the first informant or his family about the event of last seen.
5. The applicant was nominated at the instigation of inimical parties and as an afterthought.
6. One 'T-shirt' was planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. There is no independent witness to the recovery.
7. No FSL report has been produced which depicts presence of any blood stains.
8. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.
9. The deceased was a habitual drunkard and was given to wayward life style. He had incurred enmity with number of persons in the village.
10. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigations and has joined the trial proceedings.
11. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness.
12. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.
13. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.
14. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.
15. However, learned AGA contends that the applicant has a criminal history of two more cases. Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the cases could not be obtained and stated in the first instance in the bail application. However, relying on the records available with the learned AGA and the instructions received from his client, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant was falsely framed in the said cases. The said cases do not depict the commission of any heinous crime and have no bearing on the instant bail application.
16. 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- Guddu Urf Aditya 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.
The order sheet appended to the bail application discloses that the prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court on the appointed dates despite issuance of coercive measures. The prosecution is deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.
Shri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant contends that the applicant has been abandoned by his friends and family alike after his incarceration. He is living in a financial penury. The applicant did not have access to legal aid or advice to file this bail application for almost three and a half years.
Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the judgment of this Court in Anil Gaur @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P., reported at 2022 SCC Online All 623 and Ramu Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2024 SCC OnLine All 4618 have not been complied with which has resulted in fatal miscarriage of justice.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024
Jaswant
