Allahabad High Court
Rihan And Another vs State Of U.P. on 23 June, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:99006
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21324 of 2025
Applicant :- Rihan And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Chandra,Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Shri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of informant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Rihan and Subhan with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.43 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109 BNS, Police Station Heempur Deepa, District- Bijnor, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that one grievous injury suffered by the injured and four persons have been implicated. Even otherwise, applicants have been assigned the role of causing injury by legs and fists. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail since 28.04.2025. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"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."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC)LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicants 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.
(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicants, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 23.6.2025
Shiv
