Allahabad High Court
Sunil vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38052
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9071 of 2023
Applicant :- Sunil
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyamendra Singh,Abhilash Mishra,Anurag Singh,Arvind Kumar,Ashish Gulati,Tej Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Shri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajneesh Kumar Verma, learned AGA for the State.
2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the accused-applicant-Sunil. The first application for bail was rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Johri (now retired) vide order dated 02.12.2020 passed in Bail No. 4046 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while rejecting the first bail application, this Hon'ble Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial invoking the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that more than four years and seven months period have passed after passing the aforesaid order, but the trial has not been concluded till date inasmuch as out of total eight prosecution witnesses only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. However the prosecutrix/victim has been examined in terms of Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Sunil) is languishing in jail since 16.02.2020 in Case Crime No. 49/2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section POCSO Act, Police Station Imliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. about five years and four months and the fact that statement of the victim has been recorded by the learned trial court and all relevant fact witnesses have been examined, therefore, the aforesaid ground may be taken as a new ground to consider the second bail application and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, so the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.
6.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 and the accused-applicant is also having fundamental right of speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.
7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, he has submitted that considering the culpability and involvement of the present applicant, the first bail application was rejected, but so far as the base of trial is concerned, he has nothing to say inasmuch as that is beyond his control but direction of this Court should be followed by the learned trial court in its letter and spirit.
8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that while rejecting the first bail application, this Hon'ble Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial, but the trial has not been concluded till date, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total eight prosecution 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. five years and four months 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.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant (Sunil) 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 :- 4.7.2025
Arvind
