State of U.P v. Party

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant second bail application at the instance of the applicant Vijay, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in in Case Crime No. 611 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120 B I.P.C., Police Station-Shamli, District-Shamli, during pendency of trial in the Court Below. The 1st Bail application was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that in the First Information Report giving rise to the present proceedings as may as 15 persons and one unknown person was nominated for murdering one Devendra in the Court Campus who was an eye witness account in a trial being faced by the brother of the applicant. The plea raised by the applicant for bail in his first bail application did not find favour with the Court which observed that the role assigned to the applicant was distinguishable with the co-accused already granted bail. The plea of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Babli was turned down observing that Babli and other granted bail on the plea of alibe. The medical evidence fully supported the oral version and a prima facie case was made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the present 2nd bail plea on the ground that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace and on the period of incarceration since 22.07.2019 i.e. for the last more than five and half years. It is contended that till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined. This Court vide order dated 28.-04.2025 had called for a detailed report from the Court concerned apprising this Court as to why the trial was not proceeding despite passage of considerable time. The report received 2 BAIL No. 10322 of 2025 from the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned reveals that the charge sheet (05) in case was submitted as far back as on 18.06.2019 in the Court of C.J.M. Shamli at Kairana in case Crime No. 611 of 2016. Cognizance of the charge sheet (05) was taken by C.J.M. Kairana. Later it was found that previous 4 charge sheets in the matter were filed in the Court of C.J.M. Muzaffar Nagar before the creation of the Sessions Division Shamli. All four charge sheets were stated to be pending in District Court Muzaffarnagar as ST-02 of 2017, ST-693 of 2017, ST-783 of 2019 and ST-90 of 2019 after committal by the C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar. The report further reveals that charge sheet 03 relating to Case Crime No. 611 of 2016 was also sent to C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar after creation of Sessions Division at Shamli, which is stated to be pending before the C.J.M. Shamli as Criminal Case No. 32 of 2018 (State vs. Saurabh) under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. The said matter is required to be committed to the Court by the C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar. The accused in the said charge sheet is detained in District Jail Lucknow. Letter has been sent to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow to produce the accused Saurabh in the Court. The report further reveals that all prosecution papers pertaining to the related matter for committal have not been received from District Judge, Muzaggar Nagar. The applicant Vijay Muzaffarnagar jail and the remaining accused have been granted bail. The case of the applicant Vijay has yet not been committed to the Sessions Court. The report further reveals that as per circular No. 48/2020 Admn. (A-3) dated 1.11.2022 as the connected matter ST-02 of 2017, ST-693 of 2017, ST-783 of 2019 and ST-90 of 2019 are pending before the District Court Muzaffarnagar and the present matter is also liable to be tried at the District Court Muzaffarnagar for which necessary steps are being taken. is detained From the above, it is more than clear that the case of the applicant has yet not been committed to the Sessions. The trial is yet to commence and the same is unnecessary being hampered for no fault of the applicant. The Apex Court in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 has held that speedy trial is also a right of the accused as much as it is that of a complainant. The Apex Court observed that gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential necessity to release the undertrial on bail. No one can justify gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain in jail giving rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Para 15 of the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court observed as under:- "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. 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 3 BAIL No. 10322 of 2025 effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, 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. " Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the current state of affairs the trial of the applicant is not likely to conclude in the near future and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Vijay, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 19, 2025 Deepak/ (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant second bail application at the instance of the applicant Vijay, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in in Case Crime No. 611 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120 B I.P.C., Police Station-Shamli, District-Shamli, during pendency of trial in the Court Below. The 1st Bail application was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that in the First Information Report giving rise to the present proceedings as may as 15 persons and one unknown person was nominated for murdering one Devendra in the Court Campus who was an eye witness account in a trial being faced by the brother of the applicant. The plea raised by the applicant for bail in his first bail application did not find favour with the Court which observed that the role assigned to the applicant was distinguishable with the co-accused already granted bail. The plea of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Babli was turned down observing that Babli and other granted bail on the plea of alibe. The medical evidence fully supported the oral version and a prima facie case was made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the present 2nd bail plea on the ground that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace and on the period of incarceration since 22.07.2019 i.e. for the last more than five and half years. It is contended that till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined. This Court vide order dated 28.-04.2025 had called for a detailed report from the Court concerned apprising this Court as to why the trial was not proceeding despite passage of considerable time. The report received 2 BAIL No. 10322 of 2025 from the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned reveals that the charge sheet (05) in case was submitted as far back as on 18.06.2019 in the Court of C.J.M. Shamli at Kairana in case Crime No. 611 of 2016. Cognizance of the charge sheet (05) was taken by C.J.M. Kairana. Later it was found that previous 4 charge sheets in the matter were filed in the Court of C.J.M. Muzaffar Nagar before the creation of the Sessions Division Shamli. All four charge sheets were stated to be pending in District Court Muzaffarnagar as ST-02 of 2017, ST-693 of 2017, ST-783 of 2019 and ST-90 of 2019 after committal by the C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar. The report further reveals that charge sheet 03 relating to Case Crime No. 611 of 2016 was also sent to C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar after creation of Sessions Division at Shamli, which is stated to be pending before the C.J.M. Shamli as Criminal Case No. 32 of 2018 (State vs. Saurabh) under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. The said matter is required to be committed to the Court by the C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar. The accused in the said charge sheet is detained in District Jail Lucknow. Letter has been sent to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow to produce the accused Saurabh in the Court. The report further reveals that all prosecution papers pertaining to the related matter for committal have not been received from District Judge, Muzaggar Nagar. The applicant Vijay Muzaffarnagar jail and the remaining accused have been granted bail. The case of the applicant Vijay has yet not been committed to the Sessions Court. The report further reveals that as per circular No. 48/2020 Admn. (A-3) dated 1.11.2022 as the connected matter ST-02 of 2017, ST-693 of 2017, ST-783 of 2019 and ST-90 of 2019 are pending before the District Court Muzaffarnagar and the present matter is also liable to be tried at the District Court Muzaffarnagar for which necessary steps are being taken. is detained From the above, it is more than clear that the case of the applicant has yet not been committed to the Sessions. The trial is yet to commence and the same is unnecessary being hampered for no fault of the applicant. The Apex Court in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 has held that speedy trial is also a right of the accused as much as it is that of a complainant. The Apex Court observed that gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential necessity to release the undertrial on bail. No one can justify gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain in jail giving rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Para 15 of the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court observed as under:- "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. 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 3 BAIL No. 10322 of 2025 effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, 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. " Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the current state of affairs the trial of the applicant is not likely to conclude in the near future and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Vijay, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 19, 2025 Deepak/ (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad