Allahabad High Court
Ram Newal @ Kallu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 22 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4215
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 600 of 2025
Applicant :- Ram Newal @ Kallu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Khan,Shashi Dhar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, holding brief of Sri Lal Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This is the third bail application as first and second bail applications bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.135 of 2022 and 4643 of 2023 have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 28.04.2022 and 06.04.2023 respectively.
3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.07.2021 in Case Crime No.387 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station ? Bachhrawan, District ? Raebareli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this third bail application mainly on the grounds that after rejection of first and second bail applications of the present applicant, co-accused Deepu has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11690 of 2024 and another co-accused Vandana, wife of the deceased, has been granted bail on 21.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5759 of 2023. The present applicant and Deepu were not named in the FIR whereas co-accused Vandana was named in the FIR. While granting bail to co-accused Vandana on 21.01.2025, this Court considered various aspects, mainly that the trial is having no good progress and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded shortly, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712. The order dated 21.01.2025 passed in the case of co-accused Vandana (supra) reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as not pressed by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. on 04.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4438 of 2022. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. has released the second bail application of the applicant vide order dated 02.01.2025, therefore, the same has been listed before the regular Court.
3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.07.2021, in Case Crime No. 387/2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Bachharawa, District- Raibareli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the present applicant is a named accused. She is the wife of the deceased. As per the allegation of the prosecution, she murdered her husband with the help of co-accused persons namely Deepu and Kallu. There is no eye-witness account, however, there is last seen evidence to the effect that she was found present with co-accused Deepu. More than 3 years and 5 months have passed since the applicant is in jail but the trial has not been concluded till date. Despite the fact that in the case of co-accused Deepu, this Court while rejecting his first bail application, issued direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial within time frame and when the trial could not be concluded, this Court granted bail to Deepu vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11690 of 2024 (Deepu Vs. State of U. P.). For the convenience, the order dated 03.12.2024 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"1. Heard Sri Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, today in the Court, is taken on record.
3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.355 of 2022; Deepu vs. State of U.P. & another, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2022.
4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Deepu) is languishing in jail since 31.07.2021, in Case Crime No.0387/2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Bachhrawan, District-Raebareli.
5. This Court has passed the order dated 08.11.2024, which reads as under:-
"1.Heard Sri Kunwar Mukul Rakesh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Shanker Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2021, in Case Crime No.0387/2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Bachhrawan, District - Rae Bareli.
3.Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this is the second bail application, as the First Bail Application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.0355 of 2022 was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh vide order dated 16.11.2022.
4.Learned Senior Counsel Shri Mukul Rakesh has further submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, this Court had directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one and half years. Aforesaid period has already passed but the trial has not been concluded till date. Learned counsel has also submitted that the relevant fact/material witnesses have been examined. To be more precise, out of 21 witnesses, 08 witnesses have been examined and, keeping in mind the pace of the trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded promptly. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail and, the fact that the condition so imposed by this court while rejecting the first bail application have not been followed, this second bail application may be allowed on the aforesaid ground.
5.Learned Additional Government Advocate prays for and is granted 10 days' time to file objection/counter affidavit.
6.List this case on 25th November, 2024, as fresh, along with the paper-book of first bail application.
7.This matter may be taken up after fresh cases.
8.By the next date of listing, learned trial court shall furnish the current status of the trial.
9.Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court through District and Sessions Judge, Raebareli, by the Registry of this Court within three working days, for compliance."
6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned trial court submitted the status report dated 22.11.2024, which reveals that the prosecution witnesses upto PW-8 have been examined.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has pressed this second bail application mainly on two grounds. Firstly, despite the specific directions being issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 16.11.2022 to conclude the trial expeditiously, say within a period of one and a half years and more than two years period have passed but the trial has not been concluded and keeping in view the pace of trial, it is not likely to be concluded within short time. Secondly, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant, which is three years and four months, and there is a settled law on the point that in anticipation of conclusion of trial, the accused-applicant should not be kept in jail, whereas till date the substantial time is to be consumed to conclude the trial, the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail in view of the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the case in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. If the present applicant is released 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.
9. Per contra, Sri Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that there is material/ evidence against the present applicant suggesting, prima-facie, his involvement in the commission of crime and on his pointing out, the weapon has been recovered, therefore, this bail application may be rejected, though he has submitted that he has nothing to say about the pace of trial.
10. The 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."
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that despite the specific direction being passed by this Court to conclude the trial within a period of one and a half years; as per the charge-sheet, there are total 21 witnesses, out of them, only 08 witnesses have been examined, looking into the pace of trial that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future inasmuch as 12 witnesses are yet to be examined, the period of long incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. three years and four months, 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 bail application is allowed.
13. Let the present applicant (Deepu) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
14. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant being a lady may be given benefit of Section 437 CrPC (Section 480 BNSS) and as similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. She has no prior criminal history or any kind whatsoever.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that she 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.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that main allegation has been levelled against the the applicant who was instrumental in killing her husband with the aid of two co-accused persons namely Deepu and Kallu, however, looking at the pace of the trial, and the fact that the present applicant is a lady, any appropriate order may be passed to protect the interest of the applicant.
8. 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 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 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."
9. 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."
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered.
11. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the fact that the present applicant is jail since more than 3 years and 5 months and the trial has not been concluded till date; co-accused Deepu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11690 of 2024 (Deepu Vs. State of U. P.).; the applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever; she being a lady may be given benefit of Section 437 CrPC (Section 480 BNSS); there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly, therefore; the undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order as well as considering the aforesaid dictums of Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant- Vandana 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.
14. Before parting with, the learned Trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the allegation against the present applicant is that he and co-accused Deepu were in collusion with co-accused Vandana, wife of the deceased, to kill the deceased. There is no eye witness account nor there is any last seen evidence inasmuch as according to the last seen evidence co-accused Vandana was found to be present with co-accused Deepu and Kallu, the present applicant. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration, which is about three years and six months, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed this bail application by submitting that this is the third bail application and as per evidence available with the prosecution, the present applicant was having collusion with the main accused Vandana, therefore, this bail application may be rejected, however, learned AGA has not disputed the fact that co-accused Deepu and Vandana have been granted bail by this Court.
7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that co-accused Deepu and Vandana, having similar role, have been granted bail by this Court; there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded shortly; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about three years and six months; there is no eye witness account; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Ram Newal alias Kallu 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.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 22.1.2025
RBS/-
