High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10779 Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33544 of 2024 Applicant :- Yajendra Prakash Arya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohd Imdad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20199 of 2018. While rejecting the first bail application it was expected that the trial court would gear up the trial and conclude the same expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40699 of 2021 directing the trial court to conclude the trial preferably with a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of that order.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Yajendra Prakash Arya with a prayer to release him on bail in Case crime No.408 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Khuldabad, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite passage of more than three years, the trial is moving at a snail's pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial. He further submits that the entire case has been set up at the political instance of cousin of the informant. He further submits that co-accused Satendra, Smt. Shyamlata have already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2018 and 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9529 of 2018 and 57087 of 2022, respectively. He next submits that applicant has no criminal history apart from the instant case which has been explained in para 58 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.10.2017 and he has undergone more than seven years of incarceration. He, therefore, submits that considering the period of detention as well as the status of the trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future, the applicant may be released on bail. Lastly he submits that in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial and there is no chance of applicant's fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mubarak Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) NO. 8215 of 2024 and Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021). In Mubarak Ali (Supra), the Apex Court in para 5 has observed:- "The continuous detention for prolonged period (7 years in this case) would undermine the right of expeditious trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the State has failed to ensure early conclusion of the trial notwithstanding time frame fixed by the High Court, a case for grant of bail is made out by the petitioner who is incarcerated in connection with his wife's death." 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that a direction should be given for expeditious conclusion of the trial, instead of releasing the accused on bail. 6. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 7. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would dis-entitle the applicant for Bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, status of the trial, submissions of 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. 9. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date fixed without moving any adjournment application. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad