High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14965 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Niwas Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akanksha Yadav,Hemant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyawan Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties; the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ram Niwas Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302 and 201/34 IPC, Police Station Nizamabad, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial. There is allegation against the applicant and co-accused, Abrar Ahmad in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the daughter of informant was married to co-accused, Abrar Ahmad, and on account of estranged relationship between the two, case was pending before the family Court. The applicant is doing pairvi of the aforesaid case and had developed close relationship with his daughter. On 28.01.2020, order was passed in favour of his daughter and she left the house to go to some religious place on 29.01.2020.Informant came to know from his son, Mohammad Atahar, on phone that both the accused persons were talking to his daughter in a car. From 30.01.2020, the phone of his daughter got switched off. He enquired from the applicant about her, but he expressed ignorance about her whereabouts. After unsuccessful search of his daughter, he lodged a missing report on 06.02.2020 with the Police. Till date, nothing is known about her. It appears that the accused persons have murdered his daughter after kidnapping her. Hence, the applicant were initially implicated under Section 364 I.P.C. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered in the area of P.S. Aalapur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. Hence, the applicant were implicated for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201/34 I.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant except the alleged phone call of the son of the informant to the informant informing that he has seen his sister sitting in the car with the applicant and co- accused and talking. He has further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness of the incident. In the missing report, the informant did not named the applicant or the co-accused. The motive of committing the alleged offence can be assigned to the co-accused who had lost the case of maintenance against his deceased wife and not against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 06.09.2020. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of 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." Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 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 him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Abhishek Yadav