Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A,F.R.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11373
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1641 of 2025
Applicant :- Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. on 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13840 of 2023 along with two other bail applications. While rejecting the bail of the present applicant and other co-accused persons, this Court observed in para-21 that the direction to conclude the trial would be applicable in terms of order dated 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11147 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 26.10.2023 (supra) wherein this Court in para-12 has directed that the trial would be concluded within a period of one year. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards para-12 of the bail application, which is a complete order-sheet of the trial court till 08.01.2025 and the aforesaid order-sheet has been explained in para-19 through chart which clearly indicates that in most of the dates the witness was absent, therefore, no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Though PW-1 has been issued bailable warrant by the learned trial court vide order dated 26.11.2024.
4. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he would not address this second bail application on the prosecution story as the same has already been addressed before this Court at the time of arguments of the first bail application but this bail application is being addressed on the ground that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2023 (supra) to conclude the trial within a period of one year, more than one year and two months period have passed since then but no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Therefore, the aforesaid ground may be considered as fresh ground to consider this second bail application and any responsibility may be fixed upon the learned trial court concerned for not concluding the trial within the time so fixed by this Court.
5. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh) is languishing in jail since 24.03.2023 in Case Crime No.123 of 2023, under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Majhila, District-Hardoi.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that except the present case there are two more minor cases against the present applicant which has been explained in para-24 of the bail application wherein he is on bail. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that period of one year has completed on 25.10.2024 and about one year and four months period have passed since then, but the trial has not been concluded and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly inasmuch as there are total 32 prosecution witnesses, out of them, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined by now.
9. 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 passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020 granting 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.
10. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid submission regarding pace of trial. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that he has nothing to say about pace of trial but any strict direction may be issue to the learned trial court for not obeying the order of this Court in its letter and spirit.
11. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue; considering the fact that this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 (supra) wherein in the case of co-accused Jitendra Singh @ Badakkey has directed that the trial be concluded within a period of one year without giving any unnecessary adjournment to the parties but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. It is needless to say that the learned trial court has got ample powers to take appropriate coercive steps, strictly in accordance with law against the prosecution witnesses if the prosecution witnesses do not appear. If the PW-1 was not being traced out for any reason, other prosecution witnesses could have been summoned and could have been examined in compliance of the order of this Court. This is beyond any comprehension that the learned trial court has not taken proper steps to abide by the direction being issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2023 (supra).
12. Notably, the accused person is also having fundamental rights i.e. right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and if High Court issued direction to conclude the trial within time frame, at least, some positive efforts should have been seen or reflected on the conduct of the trial court, but in the present case, no positive initiative has been taken by the learned trial court concerned to conclude the trial. It has been informed at the Bar that the there are total 32 prosecution witnesses, out of them, none has been examined. Therefore, in a given circumstances the trial may not be concluded in further couple of years and in anticipation of conclusion of trial the accused person may not be incarcerated in the jail for unlimited period. The Apex Court has disapproved unnecessary incarceration in anticipation of conclusion of trial. The period of more than one year and two months is a sufficient period to examine at least most of the prosecution witnesses taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also taking coercive steps but not examining any prosecution witness is really a sorry state of affairs. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.
13. 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."
14. The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) has observed as under:-
"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."
15. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant (Virendra Singh @ Bade Singh) 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
17. Before parting with, the trial court is directed to take recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C. for examining the prosecution witnesses without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties
18. This order shall be placed before Hon'ble Administrative Judge, District-Hardoi for information and necessary order, if so required, by the Registry of this Court within one week.
.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 21.2.2025
Suresh/
