This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62005 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7933 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Shukla,G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2024 at Police Station Kanth District Shahjahanpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 452, 302, 307 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 29.03.2024.
Legal Reasoning
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 29.08.2024.
Legal Reasoning
The following arguments made by Shri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of the first informant and Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor influenced any witness. 2. The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial. 3. The status report sent by the trial court records that as per the chargesheet the prosecution proposes to examine 29 witnesses to bring home the charges. 11 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The status report also records that non bailable warrants have been issued to compel the appearance of PW-12 Inspector Satya Singh. 4. Material witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said witnesses. 5. Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence. 6. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." 7. Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. Learned AGA contends that the applicant has a criminal history of one more case. Rejoining this issue, Shri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person. He is in jail and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence, details of the case could not be obtained and stated in the bail application in the first instance. However, relying on the records available with the learned AGA and the instructions received from his client, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said case. The said case does not depict commission of heinous offence and has no bearing on the instant bail application. 9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anil be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. It is directed that in case any accused person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. In case the PW-12 fails to appear before the trial court on the date fixed despite issuance of non bailable warrants, the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur shall file his personal affidavit before the trial court disclosing the cause for failure of the police authorities to execute the non bailable warrants against the PW-12 Inspector Satya Singh in compliance of the directions of this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16871 of 2023) & Jitendra v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9126 of 2023) which were decided by the judgements dated 24.08.2023 & 20.12.2023 respectively as well as directions of Director General of Police, Government of U.P. & the Home Secretary, Government of U.P. issued in compliance thereof. The trial court shall pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Jaswant Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad