Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40095 of 2024 Bishen Yadav State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Lal Behari Yadav G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Lal Bihari Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.53 of 2024, under Sections 489-A, 489- B, 489-C, 489-D, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23rd August, 2024 after considering the fact that as per allegation, from the possession of the applicant fake currency of Rs.51,600/- were recovered but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21st April, 2024 i.e. for last almost more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined. 4. He further submits that actually on the date of incident, applicant was juvenile and therefore, during trial he moved an application to declare him juvenile but his application is still pending and inspite of repeated summons and bailable warrants issued to the principal of the school, he is not appearing before the Juvenile Justice Board. 5. He further submits that there is no evidence on record which can suggest that applicant is causing any delay in trial. 6. He further submits, if during trial applicant moved an application to 2 BAIL No. 40095 of 2024 declare him juvenile then it cannot be said that he is adopting delaying tactics. 7. He further submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submits, considering the fact that without any delay caused by applicant, even his application to declare him juvenile is pending since long due to non-appearance of the principal of the school, therefore, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated. 8. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offenses and his criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application. 9. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that from his possession fake currency of Rs.51,600/- were recovered but he could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21st April, 2024 i.e. for last almost more than one and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. However, he pointed out that during trial only with intention to cause delay in the proceeding of the trial court, applicant moved an application to declare him juvenile , which is still pending, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is not adopting any delaying tactics. 10. He further submits that therefore, considering facts of the case, the instant second bail application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23rd August, 2024 after considering the fact that from his possession fake currency of Rs.51,600/- were recovered but it reflects that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21st April, 2024 i.e. for last almost more than one and half years. Considering his long incarceration of more than a year, a report was called from the court concerned about current status of the trial. 3 BAIL No. 40095 of 2024 Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court concerned submitted its report, which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that during pendency of the trial, applicant moved an application to declare him juvenile and his application is still pending and due to this reason, trial is not being proceeded any further. 13. From the report, it further reflects that inspite of repeated summons and bailable warrants issued to principal of the school, he is not appearing before the Juvenile Justice Board. From the report, it could not be reflected that due to the delaying tactics adopted by the applicant, his application to declare him juvenile, could not be decided till date. 14. The law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and even the application moved by an accused to claim his juvenility must be decided at the earliest without any delay. 15. Further, an accused, who is facing a criminal trial can claim juvenility at any stage and if he moved such application then it cannot be said that he is trying to cause delay in the trial and it is the duty of the prosecution and the court concerned to decide his application at the earliest and if his application will keep pending without any delay caused by him then prosecution cannot claim that right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated. 16. Considering the facts of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated, cannot be brushed aside. 17. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to offenses under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and his criminal history has been explained in the instant second bail application. 18. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for preventive or for punitive purpose. 19. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Bishen Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 4 BAIL No. 40095 of 2024 to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 15, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad