Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR

Heard Sri Tribhuvan Narain Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. This is the third bail application. First bail application has been rejected on 27.01.2022 by Hon'ble Vikas Kunwar Srivastava, J. (since retired) vide Bail Application No. 6401 of 2021 while the second bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Faiz Alam Khan, J. (since retired) on 11.10.2023 vide Bail Application No. 1130 of 2023. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020 in Case Crime No. 562 of 2020 under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Maigalganj, District Kheri. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only five fact / relevant witnesses have been examined out of total 23 prosecution witnesses and those five prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. While rejecting the second bail application this Court directed vide order dated 11.10.2023 to conclude the trial within four months but till date out of 23 prosecution witnesses only five prosecution witnesses have been examined and those are mainly fact / relevant witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020 and about four years and four months period have passed in incarceration. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 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), the present bail application may be heard and disposed of finally. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is cooperating with the trial proceedings and no unnecessary adjournments/ adjournments have been sought from his side. Further, he is having no criminal history. He has lastly submitted for the purposes of bail that in the given circumstances, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future inasmuch as five prosecution witnesses have been examined yet. Thereafter, defence witnesses would be examined and after following the required formalities, the trial would be concluded but it will take much time. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 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 it has been held that if the accused person is in jail for substantially long period and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, his bail application may be considered. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ material witnesses witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate with 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. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that since this is the third. bail application, therefore, the same may be rejected as no new ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the present case may be considered to grant bail to the present applicant. Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) is also liable to be considered, which provides that if all fact witnesses and material witnesses have been examined then considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail w.e.f.24.10.2020, he may be granted bail. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant- Harjeet Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Om OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Tribhuvan Narain Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. This is the third bail application. First bail application has been rejected on 27.01.2022 by Hon'ble Vikas Kunwar Srivastava, J. (since retired) vide Bail Application No. 6401 of 2021 while the second bail application has been rejected by Hon'ble Faiz Alam Khan, J. (since retired) on 11.10.2023 vide Bail Application No. 1130 of 2023. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020 in Case Crime No. 562 of 2020 under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Maigalganj, District Kheri. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only five fact / relevant witnesses have been examined out of total 23 prosecution witnesses and those five prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. While rejecting the second bail application this Court directed vide order dated 11.10.2023 to conclude the trial within four months but till date out of 23 prosecution witnesses only five prosecution witnesses have been examined and those are mainly fact / relevant witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020 and about four years and four months period have passed in incarceration. Therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 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), the present bail application may be heard and disposed of finally. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is cooperating with the trial proceedings and no unnecessary adjournments/ adjournments have been sought from his side. Further, he is having no criminal history. He has lastly submitted for the purposes of bail that in the given circumstances, there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future inasmuch as five prosecution witnesses have been examined yet. Thereafter, defence witnesses would be examined and after following the required formalities, the trial would be concluded but it will take much time. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 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 it has been held that if the accused person is in jail for substantially long period and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, his bail application may be considered. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all fact/ material witnesses witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall co-operate with 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. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that since this is the third. bail application, therefore, the same may be rejected as no new ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra) and Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the present case may be considered to grant bail to the present applicant. Besides, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) is also liable to be considered, which provides that if all fact witnesses and material witnesses have been examined then considering the period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail w.e.f.24.10.2020, he may be granted bail. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant- Harjeet Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Om OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench