High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19660 of 2022 Applicant :- Krishna Nand Sahrma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Bhatt,Manvendra Narain Pathak,Shiv Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Legal Reasoning
This is Vth bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8429 of 2014 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bachchoo LaL vide order dated 28.04.2014, second Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10967 of 2015 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Tahir vide order dated 04.11.2016. The third Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17995 of 2017 has been rejected by Honble Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Misra vide order dated 06.12.2017 and the IVth Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25313 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, vide order dated 14.10.2020.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present. Learned counsel further submits that while rejecting the IVth bail application of the applicant, the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months, however more than two and a six months have lapsed but the same could not be concluded. He also argued that there are as many as 23 prosecution witnesses out of which, only six material witnesses have been examined, thus the trial is proceeding at a slow pace and is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.04.2013 having no criminal history. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the facts that the period of detention of the applicant in jail is about ten years. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, period of detention and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant- Krishna Nand Sharma, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 307 I.P.C. Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C. (V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 23.3.2023 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad