High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54419 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7156 of 2025 Applicant :- Aarif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma,Prabhat Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nikhil Kumar Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
17. The Supreme Court while rejecting challenge to second bail application to co-accused has granted liberty to the applicant to approach this Court in case trial is not concluded within a period of one year vide order dated 18.5.2023, therefore, till date even one year has not expired, therefore present bail application is rejected. However, it is observed that Trial Court will try to conclude the trial expeditiously. In case, trial is not concluded within eight months from today, the applicant will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application along with status of trial. ” 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there are two subsequent events that subsequent bail application of two co-accused Faim and Nasir were allowed by this Court vide orders dated 11.06.2024 and 07.02.2025 respectively and one of bail orders out of them was challenged to Supreme Court at behest of complainant, however, it remained unsuccessful. 4. Learned counsel further submits that trial has not been concluded within 1 year though has proceeded further that out of proposed 31 witnesses, now 8 have been examined and applicant is in jail since 19.09.2019 i.e. about five and half years. 5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail and submit that applicant was arrested only after taking coercive measures against him, therefore, he is at flight risk and prayer for bail may not be considered. 6. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. As referred above, there are subsequent events that bail applications of two co-accused were allowed by this Court and one of them was challenged before Supreme Court at the behest of complainant, however, it remained unsuccessful. Trial is proceeding though not in pace. 8. Court takes note that applicant remained absconding, therefore, though a case of parity is made out but it is directed that applicant will mark his presence on 15th and 30th of every month till conclusion of trial before concerned Police Station and a report in this regard will be submitted by police authorities to concerned trial Court. 9. In case of any default, the trial Court will cancel the bail on basis of report of Police Authority. 10. Let the applicant- Aarif be released on bail in Case Crime No. 438/2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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 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. (iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. (v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned trial Court and any application for exemption of his appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned trial Court immediately. 11. 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. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. 14. Trial Court will take all endeavour to expedite the trial. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for applicant, Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for State and Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for complainant. 2. The first bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2024 assigning reasons and for reference, relevant part is quoted below :- “16. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand Vs. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP (Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that present is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following reasons:- (i) Applicant is one of the main assailant. One prosecution witness has not supported the case of prosecution in her examination-in-chief, but it could not be ignored that in later part of cross-examination he has supported the case of prosecution. (ii) The Supreme Court has already taken a view that it is a case of brutal murder and since applicant is one of main assailant and that trial is still not concluded, therefore, apprehension to influence witnesses still exist.