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

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 04.01.2019 in FIR/Case Crime No.03 of 2019, S.T. No.53 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Hardi, District – Bahraich.

4. This is the second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 22.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10609 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since this is the second bail application, therefore, he shall not address on merit but shall address on the points of long incarceration, slow pace of trial and two star witnesses have turned hostile.

6. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.2 of the bail application, which is an evidence of PW-1, the informant, who is brother of the deceased. While recording his chief- examination, he has turned hostile and in his cross-examination, he reiterated that the prosecution story is not correct. As a matter of fact, he denied the entire prosecution story. Further attention has been drawn towards the evidence of PW-2, who is wife of the informant, which has been enclosed with the rejoinder affidavit and PW-2 has also turned hostile as she has not supported the prosecution version. Sri Shrama has further submitted that there are total 19 prosecution witnesses; out of them, 12 witnesses are fact witnesses and till date, only two fact witnesses have been examined and both have turned hostile, therefore, considering the pace of trial and the fact that the present applicant is in jail since 04.01.2019 i.e. about six years and seven months, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

7. 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 SC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 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 fresh ground. He 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.

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

9. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; perusing the material available on record; the fact that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only two fact/star witnesses i.e. complainant (PW-1) and wife of PW-1 (PW-2) have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future and also the fact that aforesaid two star prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant (PW-1) and wife of complainant (PW-2) have turned hostile; 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 six years and seven 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant- Milki Ram Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime 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/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, the same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 04.01.2019 in FIR/Case Crime No.03 of 2019, S.T. No.53 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Hardi, District – Bahraich.

4. This is the second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. vide order dated 22.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10609 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since this is the second bail application, therefore, he shall not address on merit but shall address on the points of long incarceration, slow pace of trial and two star witnesses have turned hostile.

6. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.2 of the bail application, which is an evidence of PW-1, the informant, who is brother of the deceased. While recording his chief- examination, he has turned hostile and in his cross-examination, he reiterated that the prosecution story is not correct. As a matter of fact, he denied the entire prosecution story. Further attention has been drawn towards the evidence of PW-2, who is wife of the informant, which has been enclosed with the rejoinder affidavit and PW-2 has also turned hostile as she has not supported the prosecution version. Sri Shrama has further submitted that there are total 19 prosecution witnesses; out of them, 12 witnesses are fact witnesses and till date, only two fact witnesses have been examined and both have turned hostile, therefore, considering the pace of trial and the fact that the present applicant is in jail since 04.01.2019 i.e. about six years and seven months, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

7. 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 SC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 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 fresh ground. He 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.

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

9. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; perusing the material available on record; the fact that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only two fact/star witnesses i.e. complainant (PW-1) and wife of PW-1 (PW-2) have been examined, therefore, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future and also the fact that aforesaid two star prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant (PW-1) and wife of complainant (PW-2) have turned hostile; 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 six years and seven 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant- Milki Ram Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime 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/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (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./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench