Allahabad High Court

Kaushal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 14 July, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40082
 
Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4712 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Kaushal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Devendra Verma,Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwas Saraswat, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 07.10.2020 in Case Crime No.338 of 2020, under Sections 366/326/302/34 IPC, Police Station ? Pisawan, District ? Sitapur.

3. This is the second bail application as first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6550 of 2021 has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. vide order dated 10.11.2022, which reads as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0338 of 2020, under Sections 366, 326 and 302/34 IPC lodged at Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.

3. The deceased got married four months before the date of incident with Jitendra; soon after the marriage, she left her house and started living with co-accused, Pratap; the deceased was putting pressure on Pratap to marry her.

It is alleged that on the date of incident, Pratap asked the deceased to come with him for shopping; he took her away from the house and the accused-applicant and co-accused, after sprinkling petrol on the deceased, set her on fire; the deceased raised cries on which several people got collected who took her to the hospital; statement of the deceased was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC; in both the statements, the deceased has assigned role to the accused-applicant in commission of the offence.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the heinousness of the offence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. Hence, the application is hereby rejected. However, the accused-applicant may revive his bail plea after all the witnesses of fact get examined by placing their evidence on record."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that while rejecting the first bail application this Court had given liberty to the applicant to revive his bail application after all fact witnesses get examined. Attention has been drawn towards supplementary affidavit, which has been filed with this bail application enclosing therewith the statements of all fact witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are three fact witnesses, who have been examined. He has further submitted that at this stage, besides fact witnesses, three more formal witnesses have been examined and statements of those witnesses have also been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel has stated that out of 23 prosecution witnesses, six prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future keeping in view the pace of the trial, so considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. about four years and nine months, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the bail orders dated 07.04.2022 and 03.08.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.2815 of 2021 and 7998 of 2022, whereby there co-accused persons, namely, Buddh Pal, Smt. Kalawati and Mangal have been granted 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 reported in 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. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all the three fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate 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.

6. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that this Court while rejecting the first bail application on 10.11.2022 had given liberty to the applicant to revive his bail application after all fact witnesses get examined and now, all fact witnesses have been examined; besides the fact witnesses, three formal witnesses have been examined, so, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, six prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future keeping in view the pace of the trial; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about four years and nine months; aforesaid three co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court 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- Kaushal 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.