Rohan Latiyan vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 2953 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rohan Latiyan vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1688
 
Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9326 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rohan Latiyan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Tiwari,P.K. Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Gupta,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
 

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.641 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 21.12.2022 against applicant, co-accused Happy Dalal and one unknown person and according to the F.I.R. on 21.12.2022 about 3-4 p.m. applicant and others committed the murder of son of the informant by causing firearm injury to him. It is further mentioned in the FIR that at the time of incident, Nimit S/o Sachin was also alongwith the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly informant was not an eye-witness and from the record, it reflects that the sole eye-witness of the case is Nimit S/o Sachin.

6. He further submits that however Nimit in his statement recorded during investigation stated that applicant caused firearm injury to the deceased but actually he was not alongwith the deceased and he appears to be planted witness.

7. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.12.2022 at about 20:52 hrs. in the late evening but before lodgement of the FIR of the present case on 21.12.2022 at about 17:32 hrs. there is an entry of G.D., which has been annexed at page 36 of the paper book, which suggests that after the incident, the uncle of the deceased namely Pankaj Sharma has taken him to the hospital and in the entire G.D., there is no mention of witness Nimit.

8. He further submits that even from the statement of Pankaj Sharma, the uncle of the deceased, who has taken him to the hospital, it could not be reflected that he ever met with Nimit and these facts clearly suggests that actually Nimit was not an eye-witness and he was not present alongwith the deceased.

9. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.12.2022 i.e. for last more than two years and till date only one prosecution witness i.e. informant of the case could be examined and he has also been declared hostile and this fact is evident from his statement recorded by the trial court, which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit dated 02.01.2025 filed in support of the instant bail application.

10. He further submits that after considering the long incarceration of the applicant, on previous date, a report was called from the court concerned and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court concerned submitted its report, which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that only after coercive measures, informant appeared before the trial court and inspite of the warrants issued against P.W.-2, till date he could not appear before the trial court and therefore, it appears trial of the case is moving with languid pace and without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is being lingered on.

11. He further submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused andon its violation, he should be released on bail. He placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713.

12. He further submits that except the present case, applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit.

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that Nimit was alongwith the deceased and he was the sole eye-witness and he categorically stated that applicant caused firearm to the deceased and however, uncle of the deceased, who has taken him to the hospital did not disclose the fact that Nimit was present at spot but it hardly matters and merely on this ground, the presence of the Nimit, cannot be disbelieved at spot.

14. They further submit that in the G.D. Entry dated 21.12.2022 at about 17:32 hrs., there was no occasion to disclose the name of the witness Nimit but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that Nimit is the sole eye-witness and in the present matter informant has already been declared hostile and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.12.2022 i.e. for last more than two years and and inspite of the warrants issued against P.W.-2, he till date did not appear before the trial court.

15. They further could not dispute the fact that except the present case, applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit.

16. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. However, from the record, it reflects that applicant is specifically named in the FIR but admittedly informant was not an eye-witness and it appears, entire prosecution case is based upon the statement of witness Nimit, who alleged to have been accompanied the deceased and was present at spot at the time of incident alongwith him and from his statement, it reflects that he attributed the role of causing firearm injury to the deceased to the applicant but from his statement, it also reflects that after the incident, information was given to the family members of the deceased and after the incident, he has taken the deceased at C.H.C., Oonh, which was situated nearby from the place of incident and immediately after the information, family members of the deceased arrived there and has taken him to the hospital and therefore, from the statement of the witness Nimit recorded during investigation, it reflects that relatives of the deceased in presence of the witness Nimit has taken him to the hospital but from the statement of the uncle of the deceased, Pankaj Sharma however, it reflects that he has taken the deceased to the hospital but it could not be reflected that Nimit was present at spot and he did not state that he met with Nimit at C.H.C., Oonh.

18. Further, from the G.D. Entry dated 21.12.2022 at about 17:32 hrs., however it reflects that Pankaj Sharma, the uncle of the deceased has taken him to the hospital but in the G.D. Entry also there is no detail, description or mention of Nimit, the alleged eye-witness.

19. Further, from the statement of the informant recorded before trial court, it also reflects that he did not state that Nimit was alongwith the deceased at the time of incident, therefore, considering all these facts discussed above, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that Nimit was not an eye-witness and he never accompanied the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

20. Further, record also suggests that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 24.12.2022 i.e. for last more than two years and till date only one prosecution witness i.e. informant of the case could be examined and he has also been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case.

21. Further, from the report of the trial court, which was submitted pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it reflects that after repeated warrants informant could only appear before the trial court. From the report, it also appears, inspite of the warrants issued against P.W.-2, he is not appearing before the trial court, therefore, it appears trial of the case is moving with languid pace and witnesses are reluctant to depose before the trial court and there is no fault of the applicant in delaying the trial of the present case.

22. From perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the applicant, it reflects that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused andon its violation, he can be released on bail.

23. Further, recently Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 again reiterated the fact that even if the allegations are quite serious and grave in nature then also on the ground of long incarceration and sluggish speed of the trial of the case, an accused can be released on bail.

24. Further, except the present case, applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit.

25. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

26. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

27. Let the applicant- Rohan Latiyan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

28. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

29. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 3.1.2025

Zafar