Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P

The following arguments made by Shri Deo Dayal, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.

The status report sent by the learned trial court discloses that the prosecution evidence has concluded. The stage is set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./defence evidence.

There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

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.

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while enlarging an accused on bail examined the right of accused 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. "

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.

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.