Allahabad High Court
Shatrohan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8204
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9653 of 2024
Applicant :- Shatrohan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Divya Prakash,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohd. Shahid Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Shatrohan seeking bail inCase Crime No. 0009 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Sandhana, District- Sitapur.
3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7540 of 2023. The order dated 12.03.2024 reads as under:-
"Rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Krishan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0009/2022, under Section- 302 IPC, Police Station- Sandhana, District- Sitapur with a prayer to enlarge him on bail.
While pressing the present application, learned counsel for the applicant says that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Elaborating aforesaid aspect of the case, applicant's counsel submitted that the deceased was having affair with the daughter of the applicant and on account of this fact, there was enmity between two families, however, the applicant married his daughter to some other person and therefore, implication of the applicant in the instant case is completely false. In this regard, reference has been made to para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, which reads as under:-
"6. That actually applicant & informant are resident of same village. Informant & his family is strong supporter of Jeetu Pradhan whereas applicant & his family did not support him as such Jeetu was having ill will with the applicant & his family. Deceased Harish, who was the son of informant, was a rowdy person & wanted to marry the daughter of the applicant, Rekha, on his own. Due to his character when the applicant & his family denied for the same, he about 4 years ago took away the daughter of the applicant with him from her house by luring her. When the family of the applicant came to know about the aforesaid fact they warned the informant to ask his son Harish to bring Rekha back & hand over to them otherwise they will get register F.I.R. against them then they entered in to compromise & the daughter of the applicant was handed over to the applicant after 2-3 days. Thereafter applicant got his daughter married with some other person leaving Harish & after the marriage she was blessed with a child also. Since the applicant did not marry her daughter with Harish as such he & his family became inimical with the applicant & his family & on several occasions intimidated the applicant & his family to spoil their life. This time when the alleged incidence occurred both the persons (Informant & Jeetu Pradhan), in order to satisfy their personal grudge, used the same as an opportunity & falsely implicated the applicant & his family by cooking a false & concocted story with the help of their interested witnesses. In the aforesaid circumstances it is crystal clear that the applicant has been put to suffer by the informant with the help of his interested witnesses due to the enmity aforesaid & has falsely been implicated in the instant case."
He further stated that before the trial court, three main witnesses of fact namely informant/Shyam Lal and eye-witnesses namely Mukesh & Rahul have already been examined and all these witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution.
He also submitted that as per the allegations made in FIR, co-accused Rampati was also assaulted, however, there is no medical examination with regard to Rampati, as such also, the contents of FIR are liable to be ignored for the purposes of granting bail to the present applicant. He further says that the recovery is also false, as there is no witness to the recovery made by the police on pointing out of the applicant.
He further submitted that co-accused namely Shiv Shankar, Ram Kumar alias Shankar and Rampati have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2022, 29.07.2022 and 13.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7341 of 2022, 7446 of 2022 and 4881 of 2022, as such, the applicant is also liable to be released on bail.
Opposing the present application, Sri Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned AGA submitted that in the FIR, specific role of causing fatal injury by 'Banka' has been assigned to the applicant. The post-mortem report also supports the story of prosecution, as per which, the injury can be caused by 'Banka'.
He further submitted a bare perusal of statement of Mukesh, eye-witness, would show that this witness has supported the story of prosecution. It is also apparent from examination-in-chief of another eye-witness namely Rahul recorded on 28.07.2023 that he supported the story of prosecution, however, it appears that due to some influence, in cross-examination, which was not conducted on the same very day i.e. 28.07.2023 and was conducted on 22.11.2023, he twisted the story before the trial court. It appears that on the influence made by the accused named in FIR, he made the statement in support of accused.
He further submitted that as per settled law, the testimony of only one witness is sufficient to convict the accused and in the instant case, one eye-witness namely Mukesh supported the story of prosecution. In these circumstances, instant bail application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the aforesaid which includes role attributed to the applicant in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses of the fact, named above, this Court finds force in the submissions of learned AGA, as such, the present bail application is rejected. However, taking note of facts and circumstances of the case, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and shall not affect the trial."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the instant bail application, it is stated that as per the charge sheet the prosecution would examined total 14 witnesses and till date only four witnesses of prosecution have been examined and as such the possibility of conclusion of trial is extremely weak and being so the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 05.01.2022 i.e. for a period of more than three years, is liable to be enlarged on bail.
5. It is further stated that the story, as narrated in the F.I.R. and the statement of prosecution witness namely, Mukesh is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality the case of the applicant would fall under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C., as the incident occurred without pre-meditation of mind on spur of moment and this part of Section 304 I.P.C. provides maximum punishment up to ten years or with fine or with both.
6. It is further stated that the main witnesses of fact have already examined as such there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses of prosecution or tampering the evidence of the prosecution. It is next submitted that in case of being enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. He also stated that delay in conclusion of trial is also one of the grounds for enlarging the accused on bail and the instant application for bail has been filed on the ground that despite the order of this Court thereby directing the trial Court concerned to conclude the trial with expedition, the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial and the applicant is languishing in jail for near about 5 years. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 25.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2702 of 2022 (Akeel vs. State of U.P.).
8. It is further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2022 and several formal witnesses are yet to be examined and in this aspect of the case, the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, as such, taking note of the period of incarceration as also other aspects, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
9. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-
"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
10. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the applicant's counsel.
12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2022 i.e. for a period of more than three years and till date only four prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined and the trial may take sometime in conclusion, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
13. Let theapplicant- Shatrohan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-
(i) Theapplicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) Theapplicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) Theapplicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) Theapplicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) Theapplicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) Theapplicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) Theapplicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) Theapplicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
14. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
15. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 7.2.2025
Praveen
