Rishi Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10293 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rishi Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 9 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:54335
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3316 of 2024   
 
   Rishi Shukla    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ashid Ali, Mohammad Kashif   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., R.R. Dev, Raja Ram Rawat   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 11
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.         

1. Considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 28.06.2021, this Court proceeded to decide the present appeal on merits with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, in absence of Shri Raja Ram Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, whose name is printed in the cause list and who chose not to appear before this court to oppose the present bail appeal when the case was called out.

2. Heard.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 7116 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0451 of 2021, under Sections 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Chinhat, District - Lucknow.

4. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order under appeal,dated 18.09.2024 it is stated that the appellant having no criminal history which has not been opposed by learned AGA based upon the counter-affidavit on record is in jail since 28.06.2021.

5. It is stated that taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court vide order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2021 (Rishi Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was filed seeking bail in terms of Section 14-A(2) of Act of 1989, directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, till date, the trial has not been concluded.

6. It is further stated that the appellant has already spent about four years and two months in jail, and taking note of this period as also the law on the issue, according to which on the grounds of delay in conclusion of the trial the bail can be granted.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that incarceration period is much higher in the present case and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi v. CBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606, 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 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:-

"4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner."

(Emphasis supplied)

10. It is further stated that before the trial court, the statement of the informant and the injured witness both have been recorded, and in this view of the matter, there is no possibility of influencing the main witnesses of the fact of prosecution.

11. It is further stated that according to the charge sheet, before the trial, the prosecution intends to examine nine witnesses, as such, the possibility of the conclusion of the trial in near future is bleak.

12. It is further stated that a perusal of the statement of the injured witness, as annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the present appeal, would indicate that his testimony is not reliable. In this view of the matter, the chances of conviction of the appellant are bleak.

13. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required and as such, the appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

14. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail and stated that the witnesses who have already been examined have supported the story of prosecution as such the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute that in compliance of order of this Court dated 14.03.2023, the trial should have been concluded. He also could not dispute the aforesaid particularly period of incarceration and the chances of conclusion of trial in near future which appears to be bleak and that the appellant has no criminal history.

15. This Court is of the view that as to whether the witnesses, who have already been examined, have supported the story of the prosecution or not is the subject matter of the trial court and this Court, at this stage, is not supposed to observe on the merits of the case.

16. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record and period of incarceration i.e. about four years and two months as also that chances of conclusion of trial in near future and the submission of counsel for the appellant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the appellant would not commit any crime/offense nor he would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel fort the appellant and is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the appeal is liable to be allowed and it is accordingly, allowed.

17. Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 7116 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0451 of 2021, under Sections 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Chinhat, District - Lucknow is set aside.

18. Let appellant Rishi Shukla, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./Section 351 BNSS.

19. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

20. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

September 9, 2025

Mohit Singh/-