Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40951 of 2020 Applicant :- Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Mrs. Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 864 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2012 (State Vs. Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji) under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar

¶4First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by an order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6946 of 2013 ( Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Post @ Neta Ji Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, order dated

19.10.2016 is reproduced herein under: "

वररममनदमणणणकपककररजममनरपमररनमपतआववदक/

अभभययकदमरममय0 अ0 सस0 864 सनन 2011,

अनररर धमरम302, 201 भम0 दस0 भव0,

रमनमननबसरम,

जजलमकमनपयरनररममजममनर

परमयककरनवहवरयपसरयरभकयमरयमहह।

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमनवपपरकशपरपतदमजखलभकयम,

इसवपतमवललपररखमजमय।

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमएवसभवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमककसयनमररमपतमवललकम

पररशललनभकयम।

आववदककवभवदमनअजधवकमनवरकरपसरयरभकयमभकयहपररणसरभरजनयसमकयकममममलम

हहररमभकसलनवआववदकककममरकमओसककहतयमकररवनहहदवखमररमआववदकककममरकमओस

ककहतयमकरनवकमककईहवरयकनहहरम,

इसजलएउसकवदमरमममरकमओसककहतयमकरनवकक

ककईससभमवनमनहहहह।यहभलबहसककरयलभककववलरलनमदयबवकवसममनवआववदककवदमरम

टवललफकनपरजयमरकमइकबमलकरनमबरमयमरयमहह,

इसकवअलमवमआववदककवजखलमफऔर

ककईसमकयनहहहहररमआववदकभद0 31-10-2011

सवजवलममहह,

इसजलएआववदककक

जममनरपरछकणभदयमजमय।

भवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमनवजममनरकमभवरकधकररवहहएरकरपसरयरभकयमभकयह

दकहरवहतयमकमणणकममममलमहहररमआववदकनवअपनलपतनलररमउसककपयतलजकउसकव

पहलवपभरसवरल,

ककभनमरमरपसवहतयमकरकव,

उनकवशवककभशनमखरनहकपमए, इसकम

पयमसभकयमहहररमआववदकनवअपनलपतनलरमजकयममरलकमजसरकमटकरबहरममरखकर

आभदतयकयममरभदववदलकवदरवमजवपररखभदयमररमउसककपयतलककमलकमशवबकरलममबसद

करकवरमजमरममकवदरवमजवपररखभदयमररमइनदकननलमशनककभशनमखरममरकमरमजकयममरल

ककदपसरलपयतलरलनमदयबवनवकक।यहभलबहसककरयलभकआववदकककभनशमसदवहलपरघटनममम

पययकरणमसमवआरलभलबरममदहहयलहहररमआरलपरखपनलरमहहआपमयमरयमहहररम

आरलसवपतनलकमरलमकमटनवकमसमररनउसकवशवपरलकरआखयमसवभलहकरमहह, इस

पकमरआववदककवजखलमफपररणसरभरजनयसमकयहह,

इसजलएआववदकककजममनरपरन

छकणमजमय।

भवदमनअपरशमसककयअजधवकमकवरकरकवपररपवकयमममममलवकवसमसररथयनएवस

पररणसरभरयनककदवखरवहहए,

वमदकव रयरदकषपरभबनमककईभटपपरलभकएहहए, आववदक/

अभभययकककजममनरपरछकणनमउभचरपरलरनहहहकरमहह।

रदनयसमरआववदकसनदलपदलभकरउफरननहमपपरउफरनवरमजलकमजममनरपमररनमपत

भनरसरभकयमजमरमहह।

भवचमररनयमयमलयकवपलठमसलनअजधकमरलककभनदरभशरभकयमजमरमहहभकववइसमममलवसव

ससबसजधरसतपरलकरकमभनसरमरर,

इसआदवशककपभरजलभपपमपहकनवकवबमदपमरभमकरम

कवआधमरपर,

यभदहकसकवरक6

ममहकवअनदरकरनवकमपयमसकरम। "

¶6Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is jail since 31.10.2011. As such applicant has under gone more than 11 years and 11 months of incarceration. The trial against applicant commenced with the committal order dated 18.05.2012. Upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not been examined even when there are as many as 47 witnesses nominated in the charge sheet. Applicant is in custody, therefore, applicant cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial. He has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in R. S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay

(1992) 1 SCC 275. With reference to above she submits that an accused has the right to speedy trial. The delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to applicant. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Attention of the Court was then invited to the judgement of Apex Court in Saudan Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that if an applicant has remained under incarceration for a period of more than 10 years, he should be enlarged on bail. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶7Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He further contends that applicant is guilty of causing murder of his wife and daughter by a sharp edged weapon and thereafter heads of the deceased were separated to make them unidentifiable. He therefore submits that considering the gruesome nature of the crime committed by applicant he does not deserve any sympathy by this court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶8Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is in jail since 31.10.2011, trial of the applicant commenced with the committal order dated 18.05.2012, in spite of the fact that a period of 11 years and 8 months has rolled by from the date of committal order, the trial of applicant has not yet concluded, there are 47 witnesses nominated in the charge-sheet, upto this stage statement of all the prosecution witnesses have not yet been recorded by the trial court, the judgement of Apex Court in A. R. Antulay (supra), since applicant is in custody therefore he cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial and therefore irrespective of the submission raised by learned counsel for applicant in opposition to the present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9Accordingly, the present repeat application for bail is allowed.

¶10Let the applicant-Sandeep Dixit @ Nanha Poot @ Neta Ji involved in aforesaid case crime number 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶11The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send her to prison. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 YK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad