High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130530 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58544 of 2022 Applicant :- Chhote Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Dhar Shukla Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Shashi Dhar Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record. 2. This is the fourth bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42899 of 2017 was rejected vide order dated 08.11.2017 by Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J. (as he then was). The second and third being Criminal Misc Bail Application Nos. 12832 of 2018 and 45696 of 2021, were rejected by me on merits vide orders dated 24.09.2020 and 22.03.2022 respectively and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. 3. This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336 and 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Khaliabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2017 and has almost undergone about six years and three months of incarceration in jail and and despite lapse of more than six years, the trial has not yet been concluded. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment as under:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the 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. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that 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 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." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2017 and has no criminal history to his credit. In the present case, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.03.2017 and has no criminal history to his credit. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the long incarceration of the applicant in jail, who is under trial prisoner and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in such circumstances for grant of bail, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 9. Let the applicant Chhote Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (iii). 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. is issued and the 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 IPC. (iv). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of the 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. 10. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. 11. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. 13. The bail application is accordingly allowed. 14. Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e-mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned. Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Subham Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad