Nauraj v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29036 of 2023 Applicant :- Nauraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶3This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 20.04.2016.

¶4By means of the instant bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1735 of 2013, under Sections 364A & 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Sector-58, District-Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶5Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail since 31.12.2013. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the investigations and had joined the trial. The applicant never influenced the witnesses and tempered with the evidence. The trial Court proposes to examine eight witnesses to bring home the charges. Till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses has led to pro-longed incarnation of the applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and is not likely to conclude early. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid facts from the record.

¶7Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that the applicant is in jail for more than nine years and nine months and out of twelve prosecution witnesses only four have been examined so far. Even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8Let the applicant, Nauraj involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶9In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad