High Court

The following arguments made by Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Kanjaanan Pyare Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail:

1. The applicant is in jail since 19.01.2022.

2. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor influenced any witness.

3. The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial.

4. The maximum punishment for the offence under Sections 414, 411 IPC is three years. The applicant has already spent more time in jail than the maximum punishment envisaged in the aforesaid provisions.

5. Till date not a single witness has been examined. The applicant is not responsible for the delay.

6. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

7. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

8. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In this wake and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the applicant- Boby be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Before parting submissions of Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Kanjaanan Pyare Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant as regards the plight of the applicant and his failure to access legal aid need to be recorded. It is contended that the applicant has been in jail since

19.01.2022. The applicant is a financially destitute person who belongs to a marginalized section of the society. The applicant was abandoned by his family and friends alike after his imprisonment. This is the first bail application. The applicant was able to file the first bail application before this Court only on 06.01.2025 i.e. almost three years after his imprisonment. The applicant could not approach this Court at an earlier point in time to seek his remedy of bail as he did not have access to legal aid nor was given legal advice to approach this Court earlier and also did not possess resources to file the instant bail application. It is also contended that the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. reported at 2022 SCC Online All 623 and Ramu Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2024 SCC OnLine All 4618 have been violated. The denial of legal aid was caused by failure to implement the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). This Court is also noticing that the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra)and Ramu (supra) are not being implemented in letter and spirit by various DLSAs. This Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra) had taken cognizance of a large number of prisoners who were incarcerated for long periods of time. The said prisoners were unable to file bail applications in a reasonable time frame on account of financial penury, social marginalization and lack of access to legal aid. This Court in Ramu (supra) had issued various directions to District Judges, Magistrates/trial courts/DLSAs and Jail authorities for providing legal aid to such category of prisoners so that the bail applications could be filed on their behalf in a reasonable time frame. Broadly there are two categories of directions in Ramu (supra). The first set of directions entailed creation of infrastructure to provide auto generated information to the concerned courts/authorities to enable them to expedite the process of grant of legal aid for such prisoners. This process may take some time. The second set of directions contemplated the utilization of existing resources in the Judgeships and taking the assistance of para legal volunteers for gathering the requisite information to facilitate expeditious grant of legal aid to the said prisoners. Prima facie it appears that the directions of this Court rendered in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra) have not been complied with by the learned trial court, the learned District Judge and the District Legal Services Authority. Learned District Judge, trial judge, DLSA, Shamli and the Jail Superintendent of district Shamli shall send separate reports regarding the steps taken to comply with the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). The report shall also disclose the impediments and causes for delay in the compliance of the aforesaid judgements and also forward the same to Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee for remedial action and better coordination. Put up this matter on 17.02.2025 in the list of fresh cases. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Jaswant

The following arguments made by Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Kanjaanan Pyare Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail:

1. The applicant is in jail since 19.01.2022.

2. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor influenced any witness.

3. The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial.

4. The maximum punishment for the offence under Sections 414, 411 IPC is three years. The applicant has already spent more time in jail than the maximum punishment envisaged in the aforesaid provisions.

5. Till date not a single witness has been examined. The applicant is not responsible for the delay.

6. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

7. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial.

8. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In this wake and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail. Let the applicant- Boby be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Before parting submissions of Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Kanjaanan Pyare Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant as regards the plight of the applicant and his failure to access legal aid need to be recorded. It is contended that the applicant has been in jail since

19.01.2022. The applicant is a financially destitute person who belongs to a marginalized section of the society. The applicant was abandoned by his family and friends alike after his imprisonment. This is the first bail application. The applicant was able to file the first bail application before this Court only on 06.01.2025 i.e. almost three years after his imprisonment. The applicant could not approach this Court at an earlier point in time to seek his remedy of bail as he did not have access to legal aid nor was given legal advice to approach this Court earlier and also did not possess resources to file the instant bail application. It is also contended that the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. reported at 2022 SCC Online All 623 and Ramu Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2024 SCC OnLine All 4618 have been violated. The denial of legal aid was caused by failure to implement the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). This Court is also noticing that the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra)and Ramu (supra) are not being implemented in letter and spirit by various DLSAs. This Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra) had taken cognizance of a large number of prisoners who were incarcerated for long periods of time. The said prisoners were unable to file bail applications in a reasonable time frame on account of financial penury, social marginalization and lack of access to legal aid. This Court in Ramu (supra) had issued various directions to District Judges, Magistrates/trial courts/DLSAs and Jail authorities for providing legal aid to such category of prisoners so that the bail applications could be filed on their behalf in a reasonable time frame. Broadly there are two categories of directions in Ramu (supra). The first set of directions entailed creation of infrastructure to provide auto generated information to the concerned courts/authorities to enable them to expedite the process of grant of legal aid for such prisoners. This process may take some time. The second set of directions contemplated the utilization of existing resources in the Judgeships and taking the assistance of para legal volunteers for gathering the requisite information to facilitate expeditious grant of legal aid to the said prisoners. Prima facie it appears that the directions of this Court rendered in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra) have not been complied with by the learned trial court, the learned District Judge and the District Legal Services Authority. Learned District Judge, trial judge, DLSA, Shamli and the Jail Superintendent of district Shamli shall send separate reports regarding the steps taken to comply with the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). The report shall also disclose the impediments and causes for delay in the compliance of the aforesaid judgements and also forward the same to Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee for remedial action and better coordination. Put up this matter on 17.02.2025 in the list of fresh cases. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Jaswant