Allahabad High Court
Ajay vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 16 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40670
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4520 of 2025
Applicant :- Ajay
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.
1.Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2.Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
3.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Ajay) is languishing in jail since 26.07.2020 in Case Crime No.354 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201 & 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauriganj, District-Amethi.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
5.Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the present applicant has been made sole accused. However, during course of investigation, the complicity of the sister of the present applicant has been found, however, she has been enlarged on bail.
6.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the pace of trial is very slow to be concluded with expedition inasmuch as out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, there is only 01 prosecution witness has been examined in the last about five years.
7.On the last date, this Court has asked learned counsel for the applicant to show the papers to demonstrate the pace of trial and in the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has filed copy of the statement of PW-1 (Nanhey) and the entire order-sheet of the learned trial court. The perusal of the order-sheet reveals that except PW-1 no other prosecution witnesses have been examined.
8.Therefore, Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is an inordinate delay in concluding trial and keeping in view the pace of trial, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about five years, he may be enlarged on bail inasmuch as the accused is also having fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such fundamental right is being violated. The Apex Court in catena of cases has observed that considering the total period of incarceration coupled with the pace of trial, the bail of the accused may be considered. The present applicant has got no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, if so granted by this Court, and shall cooperate in the trail proceedings properly.
9.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 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-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."
10.The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) has observed as under:-
"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."
11.Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the present applicant is a main accused but he has no bearing on the pace of trial, therefore, any condition may be imposed for the trial, but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
12.Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that there are 11 prosecution witnesses, out of them, only 01 prosecution witness has been examined; the period of incarceration of the applicant i.e. about five years, the fact that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly; the various dictum of Apex Court and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail.
13.Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
14.Let the applicant (Ajay) 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.
15.Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S. 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 proceedings properly.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 16.7.2025
Suresh/
