Allahabad High Court
Bhola Alias Mukesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home, ... on 15 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2513
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1885 of 2024
Applicant :- Bhola Alias Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 13.12.2024, which reads as under:-
"Heard Shri Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.
This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant.
The first bail application (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.3694 of 2018) was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.05.2019. The second bail application (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7708 of 2019) was rejected on merits by Hon'ble Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar vide order dated 29.01.2021. The third bail application (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15524 of 2021) was again dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 09.10.2023.
The instant fourth bail application was released by Hon'ble Justice Brij Raj Singh vide order dated 20.02.2024 and thereafter by Hon'ble Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar vide order dated 06.12.2024. Therefore, this bail application has been listed before this Court.
The applicant is in jail since 15.03.2017. Since the applicant is in jail for seven years and about nine months, therefore, the current status of trial in the present case would be required.
Learned trial Court is directed to provide current status of the trial by the next date of listing, by speaking and detailed order, so that the status of the trial could be understood properly.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned trial Court through District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi by the Registry of this Court, within three working days for its compliance.
List on 08.01.2025 within top ten cases.
This matter may be taken up at 2.30 p.m."
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned trial court has provided the current status of trial vide report dated 07.01.2025, which is on record.
4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Bhola Alias Mukesh) is languishing in jail since 15.03.2017 in S.T. No.281 of 2017, Case Crime No.42 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504 & 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Harpalpur, District-Hardoi.
5. 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.
6. The present bail application, which is the fourth bail application, has been pressed mainly on the ground that the present applicant is in jail for about seven years and ten months and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future inasmuch as there are total 18 prosecution witnesses, out of which, the evidence of 10 prosecution witnesses have been recorded, 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. Para-16 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."
7. 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."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that almost all fact witnesses have been examined, therefore, in view of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 whereby the Apex Court has held that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined and the accused applicant is in jail for considerably long time, his/ her bail application may be considered, the present applicant may be granted bail.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that main allegation has been levelled against the present applicant and the weapon used in the commission of crime has been recovered on the pointing out of the present applicant, therefore, instead of granting bail to the present applicant, the direction to expedite the trial may be issued.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has got no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever and in the present case he has been falsely implicated. He has further submitted that if considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant, he is enlarged on bail, he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and considering the fact that as per the charge-sheet, there are total 18 prosecution witnesses, out of them, only 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined; looking into the pace of trial that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future inasmuch as 08 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, the period of long incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. about seven years and ten months; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and having regards to the dictums of Apex Court as discussed above, I find it appropriate that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.
12. Accordingly, the instant fourth bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant (Bhola Alias Mukesh) 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.
.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 15.1.2025
Suresh/
