Sunil v. State of U.P

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 05.09.2022. The following arguments made by Shri Rahul Gaur, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness.

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the progress of the trial in any manner.

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.

The status report sent by the learned trial court records that all the material witnesses have been examined. The proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are on foot. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing any of the witnesses.

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 considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail 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.

Learned AGA points out that the applicant has one more criminal case pending against the applicant. Rejoining the issue and relying on the instructions received by the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person who is in jail and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the said case could not be searched out and stated earlier in the first instance in the bail application. However, on the basis of the records available with the AGA and instructions obtained from the applicant, it is contended that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said case only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said case has no bearing on the instant bail application.