Allahabad High Court
Ravi Shukla @ Guddan Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11206
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4705 of 2024
Applicant :- Ravi Shukla @ Guddan Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Ashish Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed order dated 27.01.2025 which reads as under:
"Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the last seven years, the applicant is in jail. The chief examination of only one witness has been recorded and there is no progress in the trial.
If the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is correct, this is realy a sorry state of affairs that the trial is not proceeding properly.
Let the status of trial be provided to this Court by a detailed and speaking order so that it can be understood as to why the trial has not been proceeded properly in this case in the last seven years.
The copy of this order be provided to the learned Trial Court through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri by the Registry of this Court, within three working days.
List this case on 06.02.2025 within top ten cases.
Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the applicant to mention this case on the next date of listing for taking out of turn."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed third supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.
4. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J. vide order dated 18.03.2021 passed in Bail No. 1886 of 2019 (Ravi Shukla @ Guddan Shukla Vs. State of U.P.). While rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, this Court directed the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial as per provisions of Section 309 CrPC expeditiously.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since this is a second bail application, therefore, he may not address the bail application on the prosecution story and material and evidence thereof but on the ground that more than seven years have passed sine the present applicant is in jail but there is no progress in the trial inasmuch out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only PW-1 has been examined. He has further submitted that PW-1 has been arrested by the police after the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court. Thereafter, he was cross-examined on 07.02.2025 as the cross-examination has been enclosed with the third supplementary affidavit filed today. He submitted that at the time of cross-examination, PW-1, who is the informant, has deposed that he has not seen the incident properly as on that point of time, there was dense dark and there was no proper light, he had only heard the noise of bullet-fire. In compliance of the order dated 27.01.2025, learned Trial Court has produced the current status of trial dated 04.02.2025 which is on record, which discloses that the date for cross-examination of PW-1 has been fixed for 07.02.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that though the present applicant is having criminal history of 31 cases, which has been explained in Para No. 4 of the third supplementary affidavit filed today, wherein the applicant has been acquitted in 15 cases and in some cases, he is not named and in other cases, he is bailed out. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the criminal history of the accused-applicant may not be the sole reason to deny the bail.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that considering the total period of incarceration of present applicant i.e. more than 7 years and the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial soon inasmuch as only one prosecution witness has been examined till date, the present applicant may be given the benefit of his fundamental right of speedy trial provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has been consistently referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are total four accused persons in the present case and three accused persons namely Abhay Singh, Ranu @ Delip Shukla and Shyam Mishra @ Shyam Kishore Mishra have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 20.11.2018, 12.03.20219 & 20.05.2019 passed in Bail No. 2346 of 2018 (Abhay Singh Vs. State of U.P.), Bail No. 2703 of 2019 (Ranu @ Delip Shukla Vs. State of U.P.) and Bail No. 1113 of 2019 (Shyam Mishra @ Shyam Kishore Mishra Vs. State of U.P.), respectively. Therefore, the applicant is pressing parity with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail.
8. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
9. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the present applicant is involved in commission of the crime as alleged in the FIR since he is not entitled for bail.
10. However, on being confronted on the point that since only one witness has been examined and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, as to why the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail may not be considered as fresh ground, learned A.G.A. has submitted that this is discretion of this Court to pass any appropriate order protecting the interest of the prosecution of the trial.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606 whereby the Apex Court granted bail 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 of that accused, therefore, they were entitled for bail. Para 15 of the case K.A.Najeeb (supra) is being reproduced here-in-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."
12. The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) in para 4 has observed as under:
"4. 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."
13. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for more than 07 years; the fact that only one prosecution witness has been examined; while rejecting the first bail application, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial taking recourse of Section 309 CrPC but the trial proceedings could not be expedited, therefore, it may be considered as a new ground to consider this second bail application; besides, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly, therefore, considering the aforesaid dictums of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Ravi Shukla @ Guddan Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
16. Before parting with, it is directed that let this order be produced before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri for perusal and necessary order, if so required.
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
Order Date :- 19.2.2025
(Manoj K.)
