Saddam Hussain vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 944 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Saddam Hussain vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79295
 
Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9441 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Saddam Hussain
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 381 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Bhojpuri, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. vide order dated 22.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3772 of 2024 but as his Lordship has already demitted his office and this Court is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant second bail application of the applicant is listed today before this Court. He next submits, he is pressing the instant second bail application on the sole ground that applicant is in jail since 14.9.2020 i.e for last more than four and half years and till date trial could not be concluded.

4. He further submitted that after considering aforesaid facts, a report was called from the court concerned which is now on record.

5. He next submitted that from the record, it reflects that in the chargesheet there are as many as 19 witnesses and till date only 7 witnesses could be examined. He next submitted that even from the order sheet dated 6.12.2024 which has been annexed at page 90 of the paper book it reflects that S.I. Smt. Rajni Verma and Investigating Officer Shakeel Ahmad were not appearing before the court concerned and against them NBWs were also issued. He next submitted that however subsequently, S.I. Rajni Verma appeared before the court concerned and her statement has been recorded.

6. He next submitted that there is no evidence on record which can suggest that due to applicant trial is being delayed and from the ordersheet of the case, it reflects that due to non appearance of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, trial of the case till date could not be concluded and therefore, it reflects that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been infringed.

7. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 and submitted that if right of speedy trial of an accused has been violated then even in serious matters on the ground of long incarceration he can be released on bail.

8. He next submitted that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and after considering entire facts of the case, first bail application of the applicant was dismissed but he could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant including delay in trial and long incarceration of the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased but as His Lordship has already demitted his office and this Court is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant second bail application of the applicant is listed before this Court.

12. Further, the instant second bail application is being pressed on the sole ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 14.9.2020 i.e for last more than four and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

13. Further, from the report of the court concerned it reflects, till date only seven witnesses could be examined. Considering the fact that in the chargesheet there are as many as 19 witnesses witnesses it appears there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

14. Further, from the order sheet dated 6.12.2024 it reflects even police personnel who were Sub Inspectors were not appearing before the trial court and against them even coercive measures were also taken.

15. Further from the report of court concerned it could not be reflected that applicant was instrumental in delay in trial, therefore, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

16. Further law is settled that if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused has been violated then even in serious matters on the ground of his long incarceration, he can be released on bail.

17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly long incarceration of the applicant of more than nine years, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant-Saddam Hussain, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

Ankita