Allahabad High Court

Ravishankar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 10 July, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39309
 
Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5982 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ravishankar Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

Sri Shukla has filed supplementary affidavit and annexing therewith the true copy of the chargesheet, order dated 15.03.2019 and the entire order sheet of the learner trial court as Annexure Nos. SA-I, SA-II and SA-III, respectively, the same are taken on record.

The present applicant is in jail since 28.10.2017, in case crime no. 454 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 201, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act at Police Station Kadipur District Sultanpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

The present applicant is the husband of the deceased with whom he got married in the year 2013. His relation with his wife was cordial. In the impugned First Information Report, the general allegation of assault and beating has been attributed to 3 accused persons, i.e., the present applicant who is the husband, Kaulesh Mani Mishra, father-in-law, and wife ofKaulesh Mani Mishra, who is the mother-in-law. During the course of the investigation, Hari Shankar Mishra, Jeth of the deceased was also implicated. All the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no eyewitness account in the present case and on the pointing out of the Jeth one Axe was recovered. However, the Jeth, namely, Hari Shankar Mishra has been granted bail from the learned court below itself. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. SA-I of the supplementary affidavit which is a chargesheet which shows that the charges have been framed by the learned trial court on 15.03.2019. Thereafter, trial proceeding started and till date no prosecution witnesses have been examined. There are total 27 prosecution witnesses out of them, 16 witnesses are fact witnesses. The aforesaid fact has been demonstrated from the order sheet of the learned trial court which has been enclosed as an action number SA-III. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the pace of the trial is too slow to conclude and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future, therefore the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in the jail, which is about seven years, eight months and 13 days may be considered as a ground to grant bail.

Learned counsel has stated that the law is trite on the point that if the accused applicant is in jail for substantially long period of time and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future, he may be enlarged on bail, in view of the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e., fundamental rights of right of speedy trial.

Sri Shukla has stated that the present applicant is having no criminal history of any kind whatsoever.The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shallcooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant has 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 libertyguaranteed 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."

13. 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."

Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2017 and sevenyears, eight months and 13 days period has been passed; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; 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.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Ravishankar Mishra, 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.