Allahabad High Court
Ankit Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37684
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10551 of 2023
Applicant :- Ankit Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Shukla,S M Singh Royekwar,Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain,Sukh Deo Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Ms. Nalini Prakash Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shani Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 24.04.2020 in FIR/Case Crime No.131 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station ? Kotwali Dehat, District ? Sultanpur.
3. This is the second bail application as first bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5624 of 2021. While rejecting the first bail application, this Court vide para-7 has directed the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year. Ms. Jain has submitted that since this is the second bail application, therefore, she may not address the merit of the case, which has been addressed in the first bail application, but the specific direction of this Court should be abide by the learned Trial Court and the trial should have been concluded within a period of one year, but about three years' period has passed but the trial has not been concluded. She has submitted that till date, only one fact witness has been examined out of total 20 witnesses. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future. So, the aforesaid ground alone may be considered as a new ground to allow this bail application. Ms. Jain has further submitted that three other co-accused persons have been granted bail and their bail orders have been enclosed with the bail application.
4. Ms. Jain has, therefore, submitted that considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for the last more than five years despite the order having been passed by this Court to conclude the trial within one year, the same has not been concluded and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near further, so the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of 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) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, 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. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the present applicant is having criminal history of five cases though such criminal history has been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant in the bail application. Learned AGA has also submitted that he is unable to comment on the pace of trial inasmuch as that fact is beyond his control but direction of this Court should be followed by the learned Trial Court in its letter and spirit.
7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court while rejecting the first bail application to conclude the trial within a period of one year, about three years' period has passed but the trial has not been concluded till date; only one fact witness has been examined out of total 20 witnesses, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. more than five years and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Ankit 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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 of the Indian Penal Code/ 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 the 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.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
10. Before parting with, learned Trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C./ 346 B.N.S.S. and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 3.7.2025
RBS/-
