Allahabad High Court
Mahfooj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74977
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28740 of 2024
Applicant :- Mahfooj Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Singh Yadav,Patgendra Bhushan Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dadhi Bal Yadav,G.A.,Pavan Kumar Maurya
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri P.K. Singh and Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dadhi Bal Yadav, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mahfooj Ahmad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime no.285 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 302 IPC, Police Station-Uttraon, District-Allahabad during pendency of trial.
This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 07.6.2022, which is not available.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before the trial court, seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 17.8.2020 and he has no previous criminal history to his credit. There are 19 prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet and trial will take time to conclude.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. They have submitted that last witness, who is Investigating Officer of the case, is to be examined. Thereafter defence witnesses are to be examined and trial would be concluded. Therefore, there is no justification for enlarging the appellant at this stage.
After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that applicant is in jail since for about five years. He has no criminal history to his credit. All other co-accused have already been enlarged on 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 applicant; keeping in view 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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, 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 court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, as per Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 8.5.2025
Ruchi Agrahari
