Vikram v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49295 of 2023 Applicant :- Vikram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,Ela Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2019, under Sections 308,324, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, three persons are alleged to have assaulted two persons. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injuries to the two injured. It is further contended that identically placed co-accused Rishi and Sahil have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41339 of 2021 vide order dated 21.12.2021. The applicant claims parity. It is next contended that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude early. The applicant is in jail since

28.11.2019. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to virtually and indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to a speedy trial. The applicant has no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injuries to the injured. Identically placed co-accused Rishi and Sahil have been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than four years and 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant Vikram, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In 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 :- 21.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad