High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51186 of 2021 Applicant :- Navratan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Navratan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 966 of 2013, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the first information report was lodged on 06.09.2013 by Rajendra Verma against unknown persons. Subsequently the name of the applicant surfaced in the matter for the first time in the statement of the sole eye-witness Ravi Verma. The name of Ragister Singh, Premveer along with the applicant were disclosed by him as the accused in the same. It is argued that the applicant had no information of his name being disclosed by the said witness and as such was unaware of the proceedings against him. Learned counsel has placed paragraph 16 and argued that the applicant is residing in Farrukhabad and no notice or warrants were ever served upon him in the present case till 13.09.2015, for the first time he came to know about his implication in the present case when he was arrested in Case Crime No. 308 of 2015, under Section 363 I.P.C., Police Station Alau, District Mainpuri. It is argued that the applicant was then taken into custody in the present case on 13.09.2015. Learned counsel has aruged that trial of co-accused Ragister Singh, Premveer and Vinod Katheriya being Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2014 (Ragister Singh and 02 others vs. State of U.P.) has been decided vide judgement and order dated 28.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-5, Gangster Act, Mainpuri wherein the said accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. It is argued that trial of the applicant being Sessions Trial No. 344 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Navratan) is still pending before the trial court in which on 17.03.2021 the statement in part of P.W.-1- Rajendra Verma who is the first informant was recorded. After 17.03.2021, there is no development and further progress in the trial. The order-sheet of the trial court has been paced before the Court. It is argued while placing paragraph 25 of the affidavit that the applicant was involved in one other case but he has been granted bail. The applicant has remained in jail for about 06 years and 05 months and there is no early likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2015. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the first information report. His implication has come in the present matter during investigation in the statement of Ravi Verma an alleged eye-witness along with three other accused persons. The said accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court. In the trial of the applicant, the part statement of P.W.-1- Rajendra Verma who is the first informant has been recorded up to 17.03.2021. The applicant is in jail since last 06 years and 5 months. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Let the applicant- Navratan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties will be of family members and the other will be of a local member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 21.2.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.22 17:54:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad