Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR

1. Heard Ms. Tanzeem Fatima, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.08.2017 in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2017, Case Crime No.202 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 404 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station – Tanda, District – Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged against unknown person. No specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant in the FIR though during the course of investigation, name of the present applicant alongwith other co-accused has been surfaced. Allegation against the present applicant is that he had caught the victim (since deceased) and co-accused Suraj Verma had assaulted the victim with hammer, therefore, if this prosecution story is considered on its face value, role attributed to the present applicant is of catching hold.

4. Attention has been drawn towards Annexures No.10 & 11 of the bail application, which are the bail orders of co-accused persons, namely, Deepmala Soni and Ghan Shyam Soni, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.11.2017 & 18.12.2017 passed in Bail Nos.9812 of 2017 & 9896 of 2017 respectively. Ms. Fatima has further submitted that one co-accused Ghan Shyam Soni has been granted bail (Annexure No.11) whereas the weapon used to commit the crime i.e. hammer was allegedly recovered on his pointing out, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. She has further submitted that there are total 51 prosecution witnesses but six prosecution witnesses have been examined, who are mainly the fact/ relevant witnesses. There is no possibility of the trial to be concluded shortly, therefore, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant, which is about seven years and five months, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a ground for bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

7. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that FIR was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, allegation of catching hold the deceased has been levelled against the applicant whereas the weapon used to commit the crime i.e. hammer was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Ghan Shyam Soni, who has been granted bail by this Court and one other co-accused Deepmala Soni has also been released on bail by this Court; six fact/ relevant witnesses out of total 51 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded shortly; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about seven years & five months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co- operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Ram Magan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number/ sessions trial number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Tanzeem Fatima, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 31.08.2017 in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2017, Case Crime No.202 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 404 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station – Tanda, District – Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged against unknown person. No specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant in the FIR though during the course of investigation, name of the present applicant alongwith other co-accused has been surfaced. Allegation against the present applicant is that he had caught the victim (since deceased) and co-accused Suraj Verma had assaulted the victim with hammer, therefore, if this prosecution story is considered on its face value, role attributed to the present applicant is of catching hold.

4. Attention has been drawn towards Annexures No.10 & 11 of the bail application, which are the bail orders of co-accused persons, namely, Deepmala Soni and Ghan Shyam Soni, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.11.2017 & 18.12.2017 passed in Bail Nos.9812 of 2017 & 9896 of 2017 respectively. Ms. Fatima has further submitted that one co-accused Ghan Shyam Soni has been granted bail (Annexure No.11) whereas the weapon used to commit the crime i.e. hammer was allegedly recovered on his pointing out, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. She has further submitted that there are total 51 prosecution witnesses but six prosecution witnesses have been examined, who are mainly the fact/ relevant witnesses. There is no possibility of the trial to be concluded shortly, therefore, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant, which is about seven years and five months, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a ground for bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

7. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that FIR was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, allegation of catching hold the deceased has been levelled against the applicant whereas the weapon used to commit the crime i.e. hammer was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Ghan Shyam Soni, who has been granted bail by this Court and one other co-accused Deepmala Soni has also been released on bail by this Court; six fact/ relevant witnesses out of total 51 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded shortly; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about seven years & five months and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co- operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Ram Magan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number/ sessions trial number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench