High Court · 2025

1.Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This is second bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2366/2022 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. vide order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure-1). While rejecting the first bail application, this Court vide para-7 to 11 directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial with expedition and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police has been directed to ensure the presence of witnesses before the court concerned. Learned Sessions Judge has directed to has vigil on the progress of the trial keeping in view that the present applicant is in jail since 06 July, 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that despite the aforesaid direction be issued by this Court, the trial has not been concluded till date and only 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 57 prosecution witnesses. One report of learned trial court dated 17.08.2024 which is on record, which says that only 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined on or before 17.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has informed on the basis of instructions that after 17.08.2024, two or three more prosecution witnesses have been examined as on today.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2016 in Case Crime No.36 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, Police Station- Manikpur, District- Pratapgarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is not addressing the Court on the merit of the case, as the merit of the case has already been considered by this Court by rejecting first bail application. He is addressing the Court only at the point that more than 8 years and 7 months' period have passed since the present applicant is in jail and despite the specific direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial with expedition, there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon, inasmuch as out of total 57 prosecutions witnesses about 9 or 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held a Catena of cases that is there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon and the accused applicant is in jail for substantially long period, his bail may be considered protecting his/her fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2025 INSC 222; Tapas Kumar Patil vs. State of Chhattisgarh has granted bail to the accused person for the reason that accused person was in jail since 24.03.2020 and there was no likelihood to conclude the trial very soon. In the present case the present applicant is in jail since 06.07.2016 and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial very soon, therefore this case is on better footing than the fact of the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Tapas Kumar Patil vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the present applicant is having some criminal history of seven cases before the incident in question, thereafter, he has implicated in ten more cases when he was in jail. In all the aforesaid cases, the present applicant has been enlarged on bail and the bail orders have been enclosed with the bail application and other affidavits. The present applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall participate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. Sri Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2020 (11) SCC, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that only on account of criminal history of the accused application, his bail application may not be rejected.

8. The main points raised by Sri Singh are that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the period of long incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. eight years and seven months may be considered in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020). More particularly, despite the direction issued by this Court on 25.1.2023 to conclude the trial within six months but trial has not been concluded.

9. The Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been held as under : "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

10. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) the Apex Court has held as under : "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

11. Besides, 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.

12. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application of the applicant by submitting that there are cogent material/evidence against the present applicant showing that he was actively involved in the present crime, therefore, his first bail application was rejected. However, he has submitted that if the pace of trial is very slow, he has nothing to say and this fact is not disputed that the present applicant is in jail for more than 8 years and 7 months.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial but the trial has not been concluded as yet and there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon inasmuch as after completing the required exercise of Section 313 Cr.P.C. the defence witnesses would be examined, thereafter the matter would be heard finally before the learned trial court. The period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. eight years and seven months. The undertaking on behalf of present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses as out of total 57 prosecution witnesses about 9 or 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined., having regard to the dictums of Apex Court in the case K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra). I am of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

14. Accordingly, the instant second bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant (Bal Krishna Mishra @ Baley Alias Satish Alias Santosh Mishra), involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 IPC/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 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This is second bail application. First bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2366/2022 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. vide order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure-1). While rejecting the first bail application, this Court vide para-7 to 11 directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial with expedition and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police has been directed to ensure the presence of witnesses before the court concerned. Learned Sessions Judge has directed to has vigil on the progress of the trial keeping in view that the present applicant is in jail since 06 July, 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that despite the aforesaid direction be issued by this Court, the trial has not been concluded till date and only 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 57 prosecution witnesses. One report of learned trial court dated 17.08.2024 which is on record, which says that only 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined on or before 17.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has informed on the basis of instructions that after 17.08.2024, two or three more prosecution witnesses have been examined as on today.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2016 in Case Crime No.36 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, Police Station- Manikpur, District- Pratapgarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is not addressing the Court on the merit of the case, as the merit of the case has already been considered by this Court by rejecting first bail application. He is addressing the Court only at the point that more than 8 years and 7 months' period have passed since the present applicant is in jail and despite the specific direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial with expedition, there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon, inasmuch as out of total 57 prosecutions witnesses about 9 or 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held a Catena of cases that is there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon and the accused applicant is in jail for substantially long period, his bail may be considered protecting his/her fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2025 INSC 222; Tapas Kumar Patil vs. State of Chhattisgarh has granted bail to the accused person for the reason that accused person was in jail since 24.03.2020 and there was no likelihood to conclude the trial very soon. In the present case the present applicant is in jail since 06.07.2016 and there is no likelihood to conclude the trial very soon, therefore this case is on better footing than the fact of the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Tapas Kumar Patil vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the present applicant is having some criminal history of seven cases before the incident in question, thereafter, he has implicated in ten more cases when he was in jail. In all the aforesaid cases, the present applicant has been enlarged on bail and the bail orders have been enclosed with the bail application and other affidavits. The present applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall participate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. Sri Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2020 (11) SCC, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that only on account of criminal history of the accused application, his bail application may not be rejected.

8. The main points raised by Sri Singh are that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the period of long incarceration of the present applicant in jail i.e. eight years and seven months may be considered in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020). More particularly, despite the direction issued by this Court on 25.1.2023 to conclude the trial within six months but trial has not been concluded.

9. The Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) wherein it has been held as under : "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

10. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) the Apex Court has held as under : "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

11. Besides, 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.

12. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application of the applicant by submitting that there are cogent material/evidence against the present applicant showing that he was actively involved in the present crime, therefore, his first bail application was rejected. However, he has submitted that if the pace of trial is very slow, he has nothing to say and this fact is not disputed that the present applicant is in jail for more than 8 years and 7 months.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that despite the specific direction being issued by this Court to conclude the trial but the trial has not been concluded as yet and there is no possibility to conclude the trial very soon inasmuch as after completing the required exercise of Section 313 Cr.P.C. the defence witnesses would be examined, thereafter the matter would be heard finally before the learned trial court. The period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. eight years and seven months. The undertaking on behalf of present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses as out of total 57 prosecution witnesses about 9 or 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined., having regard to the dictums of Apex Court in the case K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra). I am of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

14. Accordingly, the instant second bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant (Bal Krishna Mishra @ Baley Alias Satish Alias Santosh Mishra), involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of 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 IPC/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 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench