High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149160 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22514 of 2023 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas,Sarve Nazir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.525 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2018) at Police Station- Mainather, District-Moradabad under Sections 364, 366, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2017. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the
Legal Reasoning
The following arguments made by Shri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 2. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to bring home the charges. Till date only one prosecution witness has been examined. Attention is called to various summons issued by the learned trial court to secure the attendance of P.W. 1. 3. The status report also records that one prosecution witness Sukharam who is the brother of the deceased has not appeared despite execution of bailable warrants and compelled the court to take out non bailable warrants. 4. The prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the conduct of the trial to ensure indefinite incarceration of the applicant. 5. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial. 6. Inordinate delay in concluding trial had has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to speedy trial. 7. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 8. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 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- Raj Kumar 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. Before parting, this Court would like to observe that as per the status report sent by the learned trial court, the prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to bring home the charges. Till date only one prosecution witness has been examined. On a number of dates the co-accused persons were not being brought to the court. It is rather strange that the court did not take any coercive measures against them. The prosecution sought several adjournments. One of the accused was absconding for a long time. In such matters the court should not sit as a mute spectator. It is onerous obligation of the court to exercise all coercive measures to ensure the presence of the witnesses who fail to appear and cooperate in the trial proceedings. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned trial court shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of one year is strictly adhered to. All witnesses and counsels are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The trial court has also to be conscious of the rights of the accused persons and is under obligation of law to ensure that all expeditious, necessary and coercive measures as per law are adopted to ensure the presence of witnesses. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The learned trial court shall issue summons by regular process as per Section 62 Cr.P.C. and also by registered post as provided under Section 69 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel. The police authorities shall ensure that warrants or any coercive measures as per law taken out by the learned trial court to ensure that the attendance of the witnesses are promptly executed. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad shall file an affidavit before the trial court on the date fixed regarding status of execution of the warrants/service of summons taken out by the learned trial court. In case there is a failure on part of the police authorities to execute the warrants or other coercive measures, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad shall state the reasons for the same in the said affidavit and also show the steps taken to execute the warrants. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad shall simultaneously inform the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, about the aforesaid failure of the police authorities in the first instance to execute the warrants and coercive measures issued by the learned trial court. If required, the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) Bareilly Zone, may issue an appropriate directions to ensure that the warrants issued are promptly executed by the learned trial court. The delay in execution of warrants and consequent absence of witnesses is one of the principal causes of delays in criminal trials and has to be addressed effectively by all stakeholders. The trial judge shall submit a fortnightly report on the progress of trial and the steps taken to comply with this order to the learned District Judge. The District Judge shall submit a compliance report regarding the status of the trial and the steps taken to comply with the orders of this Court after every month before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Moradabad by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX. Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad