High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116382 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27356 of 2020 Applicant :- Babu Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Mani,Apul Misra,Vishnu Shankar Choubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present third bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 106-A of 1992, under Sections 147, 48, 149, 307, 302, 436, 380, 452 of IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District Etah with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.First and second bail application of the applicant were rejected vide order dated 15.03.2016 and 08.03.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23286 of 2015 and 08.03.2019. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is not named in the first information report and he was summoned along with other accused to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.07.1999. The named accused Udairam, Radhey, Satish, Sri Niwas, Ramvilas and Sonelal were released on bail during trial and they are also on bail in appeal filed by them before this Court against the order of conviction dated 12.05.2006. The applicant was serving sentence in Tihar Jail, Delhi in other case and is in UN-expured portion of the sentence has been remitted by the competent authority vide order dated 10.09.2019. The applicant is facing trial in present case. Instead of repeated orders dated 15.03.2016 and 08.03.2019 passed by this Court in the bail application of the applicant, the trial is not concluded and applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2010. It is further submitted that since the applicant was detained in other criminal case in Delhi therefore, he could not appear in the aforesaid trial at the initial stage. The case of the applicant was separated from the rest of the accused person by the trial Court. The other co-accused person have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and they have preferred criminal appeal against their sentence. The original record of trial Court was summoned by the High Court and the same is still present over her. The original lower court record is required by the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the present applicant and to demonstrate this status the entire order sheet of S.T. No. 1A/94 pending before the trial Court is annexed. It is further submitted that except two accused persons who were convicted by the trial Court rest of the convicted accused have been granted bail during the pendency of appeal by this Court. It is submitted that in case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2010 and the trial is not commenced before the trial Court for want of original record which is summoned by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Vide supplementary affidavit the order sheet of the trial Court relating to S.T. No. 294 of 2017 (State Vs. Baburam) is brought on record which reflect that the trial against the present applicant is pending before the court and on every date it is mentioned that original record has already been sent to this Court in relation to the Criminal Appeal preferred by the other accused persons who were earlier convicted by the trial Court and for want of original record only dates are being fixed and the applicant is continuing languishing in jail. Since the original record has been summoned before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial before the trial Court in absence of the original record. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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." Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Babu Ram in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions: (1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial. (2). The applicant will not influence any witness. (3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Mohit Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad