Samasu v. State of U.P.) and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66569 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43917 of 2024 Applicant :- Samasu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Araf Khan,Tauseef Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Samasu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No.1939 of 2023, Case Crime No.287 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 IPC, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura. 4. This is a third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2021 and 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47552 of 2020 (Samasu Vs. State of U.P.) and 16659 of 2022 (Samasu Vs. State of U.P.). 5. On 3.12.2024 considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20.6.2019, this Court passed the following order:- "1. Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for State are present. 2. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2021 and 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47552 of 2020 (Samasu Vs. State of U.P.) and 16659 of 2022 (Samasu Vs. State of U.P.). 3. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2019 and the matter has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 21.12.2023 but till date no witness has been examined and the trial court has issued warrants against the witnesses. 4. At the first instance, it would be appropriate to seek a report from the trial court regarding status of trial, the number of witnesses to be examined, number of witnesses examined in trial, the reason for delay in trial and the approximate time which is expected to take for conclusion of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for State shall also seek instructions regarding the reason for delay in trial and the S.S.P. concerned shall ensure that the witnesses appear before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of their testimony without any fail. 6. Since the order rejecting the second bail application of the applicant on 30.09.2022 trail has already expedited, let the matter be listed on 28.01.2025." 6. The office through its report dated 21.3.2025 has placed before the Court the report dated 12.3.2025 of the trial court concerned. This Court has perused the same. The said report dated 12.3.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mathura duly forwarded by the District Judge, Mathura goes to show that trial of the present accused was committed to the court of Sessions on 21.12.2023 and then was transferred on 11.1.2024 to the present Court. The charge in the matter was framed on 6.2.2024. It further states that as per the calendar, total number of 41 witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution. In the trial vide order dated 25.7.2024 NBW were issued against the witnesses Shamshad and Bhulla. The trial of the present accused being S.T. No.1939 of 2023 was directed to be connected with S.T. No.52 of 2017 and 447 of 2018 vide order dated 11.10.2024 wherein S.T. No.52 of 2017 was made as a leading file. The report further states that in S.T. No.806 of 2014 pertaining to the present incident and of co- accused, the matter has been decided and judgement and order has been passed against which Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2017 (Habbi and others Vs. State of U.P.) has been filed before this Court in which the trial court records have been summoned which has been transmitted. It further states that a letter for returning of the records has been sent to the High Court. Para 6 states that due to non-availability of the records, no witness could be examined. The Court in its report in para no.7 states that the trial of the present accused has been identified as a matter under the action plan and under the directions of this Court shall be decided in a time bound manner expeditiously in which about one year or more appears to be taken for its disposal. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 20.6.2019 and as of now 41 witnesses are to be examined, trial will take time. It is submitted that till date no witnesses has been examined. While placing para nos.8 and 11 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that although the FIR in the present matter was lodged in the year 2014 but the applicant was arrested on 20.6.2019 since he had no knowledge of being accused in the present matter. It is submitted that the applicant has been residing in Haryana since the last more than two decades and working there. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court an order dated 27.10.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23549 of 2018 (Pratap @ Krishna Vs. State of U.P.) and submitted that this Court considering the delay and also the judgement of the Apex Court regarding delay in trial and the confinement of the accused, granted bail to the said accused. It is submitted that as such the applicant who is in jail since 20.6.202019 be directed to be released on bail. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that this is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2021 and the second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 30.9.2022. It is submitted that while rejecting the second bail application of the applicant, this Court had expedited the trial on the request of learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the records of the present bail application, it is not evident that the said order expediting the trial has been filed before the trial court concerned. The applicant is a named accused in the present matter of which FIR was lodged on 20.4.2014 but the applicant was arrested on 20.6.2019 which is after a period of five years and two months. It is further submitted that in so far as the ground regarding the applicant not coming to know about his implication in the present case is concerned, the same patently does not transpire confidence inasmuch as Panna Lal, the brother of the applicant was also a named accused in the matter who was arrested and has been tried and his trial has concluded. Since the applicant had absconded, his trial was separated and now after his arrest, the same has started, the delay has occurred since trial of co-accused concluded in which they were convicted against which an appeal has been filed before this Court in which trial court records have been summoned, as such the trial of the applicant could not proceed. In so far as the order of this Court in the bail of Pratap @ Krishna is being relied by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is not having similarity to the applicant inasmuch as the said accused did not abscond and considering the delay in trial, his bail was considered by this Court and he was granted bail but in the present case, the applicant has absconded for about five years and two months after which he was arrested despite the fact that his real brother was also accused who was tried but the applicant evaded the process of law and thus his trial was separated. Thus the said order is distinguishable on facts and cannot be considered. The prayer for bail be thus rejected. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the incident in the present case is of 19.4.2014 of which FIR was lodged on 20.4.2014. The applicant is named accused therein. Amongst eleven named accused, Panna Lal, the brother of the applicant is also an accused. After lodging of the FIR the applicant absconded and it was only on 20.6.2019 he was arrested which is after about five years and two months. His trial was separated from that of other co-accused persons. Five accused persons were tried and have been convicted vide judgement and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the trial court against which appeals are pending before this Court. The disclosure is in para no.12 of the affidavit in support of bail application. The same thus goes to show that trial therein concluded expeditiously. The delay in trial of the present applicant is because of the reason that he absconded. The case of accused Pratap @ Krishna effectively has a distinction since he was granted bail by this Court on the ground of delay in trial but in the said matter he was not absconding. In the present matter since the applicant absconded for about 5 years and 2 months, his trial was separated due to which the same could not proceed. 10. In view of the same, no ground exists to entertain the present bail application. I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is thus rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad