Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14982
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5421 of 2024
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra,Shailendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.2236 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Bahraich with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1116 of 2020 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 with a direction to the trial court concerned to conclude the pending trial expeditiously say within a period of one and a half year.
4. While pressing the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that vide order dated 20.07.2022 by which the first bail application was rejected, this Court had directed the trial court concerned to conclude the pending trial expeditiously within a period of one and a half year, however, till date, the trial has not been concluded and the case is fixed for 12.03.2025 for cross-examination of P.W.11.
5. It is further stated that all the main witnesses of fact have already been examined before the trial court and in this view of the matter there is no possibility of influencing the main witnesses of fact.
6. It is further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2016 and taking note of the fact that case is fixed for 12.03.2025 for cross-examination of P.W.11 and the witnesses of fact have already been examined and as such there is no possibility of influencing the witnesses of fact including the informant as also the fact that as per the charge sheet, the prosecution would examine total 14 witnesses. If all the witnesses would be examined by the prosecution, which would cause further delay in conclusion of trial and in this view of the matter the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak and as such, taking note of these aspect of the case as also the period of incarceration i.e. about 8 years, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 25.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2702 of 2022 (Akeel vs. State of U.P.).
7. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted 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 period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted 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."
8. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"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."
9. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and he will cooperate in trial. The prayer is to enlarge the applicant on bail.
10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant particularly the period of incarceration as also settled proposition of law in this regard.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind the period of incarceration i.e. near about 8 years and also that the statements of 14 witnesses have to be recorded before the trial court and also the applicant has no criminal history, as indicated in para 37 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and also that it appears that the applicant is not in a position to influence the main witnesses of the prosecution who have already been examined before the trial court and the judgments, referred above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
12. Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
14. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
15. Observations made hereinabove by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 11.3.2025
Anand/-
