Shiv Parwat v. State of U.P

Applicant :- Shiv Parwat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.10.2021. Since more than two years have been passed, the matter has been placed before this Court. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.11.2017 and has no criminal history to his credit. Before the trial court, 10 out of 33 prosecution witnesses have only been examined. Trial will take time to conclude. Co-accused, Dinesh Kashyap, has been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc.

Bail Application No. 16191 of 2022 by the order dated 03.02.2023. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :- "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. " Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs.