Allahabad High Court
Ballu Alias Yogendra vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88860
Reserved On:-17.05.2025
Delivered On:-26.05.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16759 of 2025
Applicant :- Ballu Alias Yogendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant,Ballu Alias Yogendra, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1974 of 2021, under Sections, 302, 201 of IPC, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the F.I.R. that the son of the informant left his house on 29.12.2021, but did not returned. Younger brother of the informant, Arun, informed that he had seen his son alongwith the applicant, Ballu @ Yogendra, Both were going on motorcycle. Wife of Ballu, was also on the the motorcycle with co-accused, Pawan. Hence, named F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused, namely, Pooja and Pawan and one unknown accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of last seen evidence and his confessional statement. The police has falsely shown the dispute regarding amount of Rs. 1800 as the cause of dispute between the deceased and the applicant. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 21.01.2022. 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 applicant and has submitted that the applicant was seen in the CCTV footage alongwith the deceased and co-accused. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that co-accused, Pooja and Pawan Chowdhary, have already been enlarged on bail. The trial has begun and the statements of the witnesses are being recorded.
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 applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant 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 applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail 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 that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) 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. 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.
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 applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, as per section 309 Cr.P.C. (new section 346 B.N.S.S.)
Order Date :- 26.5.2025
Abhishek
