Bheem v. State of U.P

Reserved on 17.11.2023 Delivered on 20.11.2023 Case :-CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -38767 of 2023 Applicant :-Bheem Opposite Party :-State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :-Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :-G.A.,Ravi Prakash Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Mrs. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Bheem, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.685 of 2021, under Sections 302, 34, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha, during pendency of trial. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 11.1.2023 directing the court below to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant and co-accused, Vineet, were similarly implicated on the allegation that both have caused injuries to the deceased by knife as a result of which he died. Later witnesses were examined to save the co-accused, Vineet and he was assigned the role of catching hold only. He has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54112 of 2022 on the aforesaid ground. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that before the trial court, nine prosecution witnesses out of sixteen have been examined. The trial will take time to conclude. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2021. She has pointed out to the statement of PW-1, who has not clearly implicated the applicant with the aforesaid role. She has stated that she does not knows, who were the persons involved in the incident and has stated that Khalid was present at the scene of occurrence and he must be knowing about the correct facts. She has finally submitted that the incident took place all of sudden and there was no intention to cause the murder of the deceased. The deceased died due to septicaemia and hence the case of the applicant does not travels beyond Section 304, Part-II IPC. This is first implication of the applicant. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(v) 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 2 of 3 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Ruchi Agrahari 3 of 3 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad