Allahabad High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home ... on 7 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Sitting At Lucknow
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8244
A.F.R.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12654 of 2023
Applicant :- Jaswant Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302, 286, 506, 120-B IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 14.09.2018 at 20.30 Hrs. against the applicant, his father Komal Siingh and one Ram Singh alleging that at about 05.15 on 14.09.2018 p.m. Komal Singh and Yashwant Singh (the applicant) shot at Bheem Singh and Arun Kumar Singh with a rifle and a revolver due to a dispute regarding a passage. The informant took the injured Arun Singh and Bheem Singh to the District Hospital where Arun Singh was declared dead and Bheem Singh died during treatment.
4. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5915 of 2021 filed by the applicant was rejected by means of an order dated 17.10.2022, wherein it is mentioned that the postmortem reports of the deceased disclose ante-mortem firearm injuries. The rifle, alleged to have been used in commission of the offence, has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.
5. The applicant had filed SLP (Crl.) No. 597/2023 against the rejection order dated 17.10.2022. The SLP was dismissed by means of an order dated 24.01.2023. However, while dismissing the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'the trial has been expedited by the High Court. In case of lack of meaningful progress, it is open to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh considering the progress of the trial'.
6. This second application has been filed on the ground that although the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2018, only 7 out of 23 witnesses have been examined. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by means of an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2025.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: (2024) 9 SCC 813. He has also relied upon a decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P.: 2023 (6) ALJ 19.
8. Per contra, the learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that all the seven prosecution witnesses examined by the trial court have supported the prosecution case. There is no major discrepancy in their statements, which may give any benefit to the applicant.
9. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised its discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects of the matter: -
(i) The appellant is in jail as an undertrial prisoner past four years;
(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and
(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.
10. It was in the aforesaid peculiar factual background of the case, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (Supra) that: -
"17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
11. In Bhanwar Singh (Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the applicant in view of the following submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, which could not be disputed by the State Counsel: -
I. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and had always cooperated with the investigations and joined the trial proceedings.
II. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.
III. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that delay in the trial is also being occasioned by the failure of the police authorities to serve summons and execute coercive measures issued by the learned trial court.
IV. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.
V. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
VI. 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.
(Emphasis added)
12. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb: (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"15. 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 [(1994) 6 SCC 731], 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, the 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, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
13. However, in X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.
* * *
16. ...It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."
14. It is settled law that a precedent has to be understood and applied in light of the peculiar facts of that case.
15. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 306: the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"9. Each case, more particularly a criminal case, depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive..."
16. In the present case, the trial is proceeding. As many as seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and all of them have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the facts of the present case are in no manner similar to the facts of the cases of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Bhanwar Singh (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant.
17. The learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any major discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Occurrence of some minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses is natural and it would not give any benefit to the applicant. There is no allegation that the prosecution is causing undue delay in trial.
18. The applicant's father co-accused Komal Singh has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the fact that he is a septuagenarian whereas the applicant is merely 42 years of age and this fact distinguishes the case of Komal Singh from the case of the applicant.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the peculiar facts of the present case noted above do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on bail. The second bail of the applicant is accordingly rejected.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J)
Order Date: 07.02.2025
Pradeep/-
