High Court

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, it is a case, in which two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injury but nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Satish Singh through the information given by Rahul Upadhyay.

4. He further submits that co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43605 of 2017 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

5. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and till date only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 20 prosecution witnesses of the charge-sheet, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. He further submits that applicant is in jail for last more than a decade and therefore, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to the provision of Section 302 I.P.C. but in that case, he is on bail.

8. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019.

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

10. However, it is a case, in which after committing murder of two persons robbery was committed and one person also sustained injury in the incident but it reflects, nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, name of the applicant was surfaced through the statement of Rahul Upadhyay alongwith co-accused Satish Singh and co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

11. Further, it also reflects that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and considering this fact, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial and from perusal of the report of the court concerned, it reflects that only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 20 prosecution witnesses of the charge-sheet, however, from the report, it reflects that due to non-appearance of other accused, trial could not be rapidly proceeded but report also suggests that inspite of the repeated summons issued by the court concerned, applicant is not being produced before the court concerned from the jail. Be that as it may, from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

12. Further, law is settled, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail.

13. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to the provision of Section 302 I.P.C. but it reflects, in that case, he is on bail. Further, it reflects, this case is of the year 2016, therefore, it appears, while applicant was detained in jail in the present matter then he has been made accused in that case with the aid of Section 120-B I.P.C.

14. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail application of an accused should not be withheld and bail cannot be refused for punitive purpose.

15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than a decade, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

17. Let the applicant- Vikas Singh, 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 :- 7.3.2025 Zafar

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, it is a case, in which two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injury but nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Satish Singh through the information given by Rahul Upadhyay.

4. He further submits that co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43605 of 2017 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

5. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and till date only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 20 prosecution witnesses of the charge-sheet, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

6. He further submits that applicant is in jail for last more than a decade and therefore, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to the provision of Section 302 I.P.C. but in that case, he is on bail.

8. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019.

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

10. However, it is a case, in which after committing murder of two persons robbery was committed and one person also sustained injury in the incident but it reflects, nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, name of the applicant was surfaced through the statement of Rahul Upadhyay alongwith co-accused Satish Singh and co-accused Satish Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

11. Further, it also reflects that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 10.06.2014 i.e. for last more than ten and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and considering this fact, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial and from perusal of the report of the court concerned, it reflects that only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 20 prosecution witnesses of the charge-sheet, however, from the report, it reflects that due to non-appearance of other accused, trial could not be rapidly proceeded but report also suggests that inspite of the repeated summons issued by the court concerned, applicant is not being produced before the court concerned from the jail. Be that as it may, from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

12. Further, law is settled, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail.

13. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case, which relates to the provision of Section 302 I.P.C. but it reflects, in that case, he is on bail. Further, it reflects, this case is of the year 2016, therefore, it appears, while applicant was detained in jail in the present matter then he has been made accused in that case with the aid of Section 120-B I.P.C.

14. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail application of an accused should not be withheld and bail cannot be refused for punitive purpose.

15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than a decade, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

17. Let the applicant- Vikas Singh, 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 :- 7.3.2025 Zafar