High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30540 of 2020 was rejected by me on merits vide order dated 20.10.2022 by which the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

4. This bail application has been filed seeking prayer for bail on behalf of applicant- Maya Devi, involved, in Case Crime No.31 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 326, 328, 307, 506, 511, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District- Varanasi.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are as many as 20 prosecution witnesses to be examined, however, till date only 2 witnesses have been examined and 18 witnesses are yet to be examined. In the backdrop of the said circumstance, it is evident that there is no likelihood that the trial would be concluded in near future and as such, the applicant seeks indulgence of this Court for her release on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is a lady and is languishing jail since 03.02.2020 and has undergone more than five years of incarceration in jail and there are very bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to very heavy dockets.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment as under:- "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. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 and has no criminal history to her credit. In the present case, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, she be released on bail.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 and has no criminal history to her credit. They have further submitted that the applicant is also responsible for delaying the trial but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is continuously in jail since 03.02.2020 and has already undergone about 5 years incarceration.

10. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, who is under trial prisoner and keeping in view the fact that in the instant case, 20 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, out of which, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date and 18 witnesses are yet to be examined, the chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such circumstances for grant of bail, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Let the applicant Maya Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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. (ii). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC. (iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of the 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 her in accordance with law.

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

13. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

15. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

16. Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e- mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned. Order Date :- 14.2.2025/Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30540 of 2020 was rejected by me on merits vide order dated 20.10.2022 by which the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

4. This bail application has been filed seeking prayer for bail on behalf of applicant- Maya Devi, involved, in Case Crime No.31 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 326, 328, 307, 506, 511, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District- Varanasi.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are as many as 20 prosecution witnesses to be examined, however, till date only 2 witnesses have been examined and 18 witnesses are yet to be examined. In the backdrop of the said circumstance, it is evident that there is no likelihood that the trial would be concluded in near future and as such, the applicant seeks indulgence of this Court for her release on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is a lady and is languishing jail since 03.02.2020 and has undergone more than five years of incarceration in jail and there are very bleak chances of trial being concluded in near future due to very heavy dockets.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment as under:- "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. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 and has no criminal history to her credit. In the present case, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, she be released on bail.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.02.2020 and has no criminal history to her credit. They have further submitted that the applicant is also responsible for delaying the trial but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is continuously in jail since 03.02.2020 and has already undergone about 5 years incarceration.

10. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, who is under trial prisoner and keeping in view the fact that in the instant case, 20 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, out of which, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date and 18 witnesses are yet to be examined, the chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such circumstances for grant of bail, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Let the applicant Maya Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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. (ii). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC. (iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC. (iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of the 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 her in accordance with law.

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

13. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

15. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

16. Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e- mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned. Order Date :- 14.2.2025/Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad